OPERATION ZIPPER:

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: kenmurray, dankbaar, Bob, Dealey Joe

OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:38 pm

12.10.2009

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

10.16.2009 - I originally Posted this Very Important Headline.

A lengthy discussion developed by some of the Very Best JFK Members. But yet the Members and Readers
here are a FINITE NUMBER. How do we qualify and quantify what has been accomplished here ? Have we
Cummulatively Improved THE TRUTH About The JFK Removal ?

There is much to analyze and study herein. What are your Strongest Academic Points ?

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material completely about a Subject
Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies , thoughts, or writings on any
aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation of JFK Researchers who may
not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Last edited by Bruce Patrick Brychek on Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Bob » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:49 pm

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Dear Mr. Randy Bednorz:

Thank You for all of your Headlines, Posts, Responses, and Replies.

I eventually read everything on the JFK Forum.

During the week I generally skim everything when I can. On the weekends I try to really focus, and digest everyone's material.

You, Randy Bednorz, Phil Dragoo, and Joe "Dealey Joe" Hall are my favorite New JFK Forum Members.

Randy, you are a very powerful contributor. This weekend "you" are a project of mine on "My Things To Do List." I want to carefully Read and Study many/most of your contributions. I have skimmed many/most, but not to the degree that would do your efforts justice. Nor to the degree that would benefit me.

I also need to do the very same with some of Phil Dragoo's contributions.

Keep up the great work. You and Phil Dragoo have really become immediate Powerful Contributors.

Best Regards, Always.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.


Indeed. Deep thinkers as well. Don't expect to read through their takes and comprehend things in one sitting. :shock: At least my feeble mind can't. :wink:

Joe Pesci (as David Ferrie) said it best about "...it's a mystery, wrapped in riddle...inside an enigma..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_40kJlo9P4g

I would say that the writing styles of both Randy and Phil are in that same vein. 8)
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:40 am

I'm humbled -- thanks, Bruce.

I'm trying to recollect how I became immersed in this business.

It started with the Clinton impeachment. Before that, I believed "Oswald did it" as late as 1995. I didn't get to see the Stone movie until around 1997, but I'd already seen Nigel Turner's "Men Who Killed Kennedy" around '95 or '96. And even after seeing the Stone film, I thought it was a great film, but I couldn't believe it. It fell into the category of "conspiracy-a-go-go" -- a cliche' for "everybody-did-it" scenarios established by Texas Monthly in their 35th Anniversary November issue.

It wasn't until after January 14, 1999 that I started "catching up." Nicole Seligman -- a White House attorney -- was debating with then-Congressman Graham on the Senate floor. I started thinking about "Constitutional crises." Three days later -- and mind you, I'm not an alcoholic and it takes me two or more months to finish a brandy bottle -- I had a snifter of pear brandy, was even feeling a bit tipsy, and ran a query on the web as a lark. A complete and utter lark.

I was snickering to myself, posing the question "What is the link between Dealey Plaza, Watergate and the Clinton White-House?" I mean -- I was really "in a mood" that evening. I was going to have some web-surfing fun; I was going to enjoy the evening with that snifter of brandy, too. I read the Washington Post daily from the moment Clinton took office; didn't recognize or notice the Stone film, its preview to both houses of Congress and the '92 Records Collection Act. And suddenly, all these links come up from my query.

You're going to get various links that fit the predicate "JFK Assassination" OR "Watergate" OR "Clinton" -- understandable. But you also get the links fitting the predicate with AND instead of OR. I was stunned.

After I read Fonzi's 1994 "Last Investigation," I must have taken note of Fonzi's passage concerning publication of "Night Watch." From there, it seemed more like a "moon-landing-leap," just a hunch about Phillips' personality, and the idea that -- if he published -- there might be something there.

I never had pretensions or even the budget to run around collecting taped interviews with aging Cuban-exiles, or any of the other things that "assassination-researchers" do -- other than visiting the document collections.

But even so . . . . . don't you think . . . . that people think I'm nuts when I try and explain this stuff while shopping in the grocery store? That's the impression I get. They think I'm nuts! See . . . . I know that sometimes, I actually enjoy behaving as though I'm nuts -- a perquisite of retired living. But . . . I'm not nuts!
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby tom jeffers » Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:48 pm

randy,

i want to personally thank you for your thousands of hours of research and putting all these pieces together so guys like me can just soak it all in. I can get an idea of how much time you have spent in drawing parallels and throwing out pieces that do not match. you have done all the hard work and I thank you for that. i have a much greater insight to that enigma called phillips and a lot better understanding as to how it all fits together. please stay on and continue to contribute. i did not post much on this blog but i assure you i read everything you wrote. thank you and big kudos my friend!

Namaste'
tom jeffers
 

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:51 pm

Thanks, Tom.

I don't know of a situation where I actually "threw out" something that "didn't match."

I'm still pondering over Bob's "Gaulloises" discovery -- the "helmet of Vercingetorix." I refuse to concede at this point that it's "just a reference to French cigarettes."

That's why I'm trolling for information about Helms, not willing to take his autobiography without finding flaws in it. And the main reason I believe at this point that the cigarette-package has meaning: it's a "hat," and hats are important symbolic artifacts in the "Fictional Yet Authentic" action-chapter of "Carlos."

Someone else had said that Phillips had "skills" in cryptography. I beg to differ on this, only insofar as not finding anything "cryptographic" in the books. Instead, he demonstrates his liberal-arts and literary education with allegory, image, symbol, metaphor. Phillips prefers to think of his veiled confessions, boasts and indications as a kind of cryptography. But if it were actually that, there would be a "key," and we could "decypher" clear statements -- statements like "I had Kennedy killed," or "I dressed up Oswald as a real-life Raymond Shaw."

But I have to emphasize what Christoph Messner calls "the combinatorics." The phrases connecting Hunt's "Give Us This Day," Phillips and Knight, with "Manchurian Candidate" are not coincidence. Nor are the appearance of "Mafia" and "Orozco" on a single page of two books (one being "Manchurian Candidate." You can't argue around it. So the inferences -- that Hunt compares Phillips to Raymond Shaw, and that Phillips compares himself to Colonel Ben Marco by way of "Knight" -- I don't believe those inferences are weak or refutable.

I tried to explain this stuff to my brother. He didn't quite get it. He responded "So? Phillips organized the assassination of Kennedy because he (Phillips) read a book ("Manchurian Candidate")? C'mon! "

No. Phillips was so familiar with the book and movie, and his associations with either Condon or people who knew Condon or Frankenheimer or others in the film milieu go back long before the assassination. It goes to premeditation, planning and intent.

Does this mean that Condon or Frankenheimer were "bad," or that they're somehow guilty in the assassination? No. Hollywood has always been forthright -- from the days of World War II -- that they always stepped up to the plate to help the government. In that sense, everything -- everything is propaganda. To some extent, my arguments here are propaganda because they are arguments. It's one thing to create a myth in fiction (like Ellie Iselin, communist handler of her own son), and make a scary movie. It's still easy to see -- thinking that the threat of Monolithic Communism was not only real but very big -- how the release of the film might be timed deliberately.

That part of it speaks to a mindset that says "I go to movies to be entertained. I don't go to movies to be educated." One man's education is another man's propaganda. Mass media is very powerful -- more so than we'd like to admit to ourselves, being the independent thinkers and individuals we all think we are.

We could submit the paradox that the movie -- by itself -- exaggerated and distorted the Truth about "world-wide communism" to manipulate public opinion. Those were scary times -- I remember those times. "Duck and cover." But it is also obvious that public opinion was manipulated. Perhaps defense expenditures were bloated because of exaggerated threats. We know today that there was no "monolithic communist threat," we know that the Sino-Soviet Split was real, and that various communist countries and communist parties were not acting in unison. Even that revelation will be argued back and forth, endlessly.

But more than anything, it explains what Phillips was thinking. It was his "project." He'd failed with Operation Zapata and Swan Island. The assassination was his great psy-war art-work.

When I take those things I found in the books all together, I can't create a different explanation from it.

So we found a "confession in print" by someone trying to defeat a CIA vetting process -- by someone who was proud of his work and wanted to make a lasting record of it.

As for Helms -- he says at one point during the 1960s -- "Plausible Deniability was out the window and no longer an option." Yet, even this decade, you heard George Bush arguing that there would be some things -- covert operations -- that people would never know. It comes from the same crew who keeps pushing back the deadlines for declassifying documents under the 1978 Presidential Records Act.

And I have to argue this. If a democracy is a collective decision-making process, how can the collective arrive at responsible decisions based on false, distorted and missing information? Secrecy seems to be incompatible with democracy, and also incompatible with a broad but reasonable conception of Freedom.

I'm sure we all like Matt Damon in his various roles for the Bourne trilogy and "The Good Shepherd." In the latter film, he sits down with a Mafia don who asks "Us Italians -- we got our families and the church; the Irish, they got their homeland; the niggers -- they got their music. What have you got?"

And Damon's character, Mr. Wilson, answers "We've got the United States of America. And the rest of you are just visiting."

"Good Shepherd" has an interesting set of characters drawn from real-life. "General Sullivan" -- Wild Bill Donovan. Wilson? An amalgam of Angleton and Helms. On the other hand, it creates a fictional myth about how Bayos de Cocinos was "compromised." All th history we have shows that Esterline and Col. Jack Hawkins wanted to bail from the project when the plans for the invasion were changed, and the flaw was in the plan.

Those distortions don't make it much easier for me to say "You don't have the United States of America, and the rest of us are not just visiting."
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby tom jeffers » Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:35 am

you know it makes a lot of sence because guys like phillips cannot just go home and discuss his days work with his wife. he had nobody to share his accomplishments with. so writing fiction was his way of keeping a journal so to speak and in that way he could correct his mistakes by the stroke of his pen. he could discuss his day and confide in a fictional environment. pretty deep shit!
tom jeffers
 

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:58 am

tom jeffers wrote:you know it makes a lot of sence because guys like phillips cannot just go home and discuss his days work with his wife. he had nobody to share his accomplishments with. so writing fiction was his way of keeping a journal so to speak and in that way he could correct his mistakes by the stroke of his pen. he could discuss his day and confide in a fictional environment. pretty deep shit!


That's the only way I can make sense of it myself.

Take for instance James Jesus Angleton. What did he write? Nothing! Definitely dedicated to counterintelligence work, or probably how it was better not to write a memoir. When I was reading "Sword and the Shield" from the Mitrohkin archives, it appears that the KGB didn't have a clue about Angleton's identity. The Cubans only knew about Phillips as "Bishop" after enough had been published in this country. In other words, they knew "Bishop," but only connected him with Phillips after Fonzi's book was published and convention of the Nassau Conference of the 1990s.

The problem with Angleton -- pursuing your own thoughts on this -- he was a lush. He drank like a fish; smoked like a coal furnace. As the story goes, Kim Philby would come to Washington, and they'd go out to a restaurant -- La Nicoise, I think. Then Angleton would proceed to get drunker than a skunk, and as he did, he actually became more . . . . articulate. That is, the more inebriated he was, the more sober he appeared to be. But he apparently would yammer about "operations" -- unable to recall later what he said. For this reason, the Philby defection was even more devastating to him.

Wait a minute. Do you see what I just said? The archives don't mention Angleton. But Philby defected to Moscow. So they HAD to know who Angleton was. Now I've gone back and reviewed some details. Angleton "suspected" Philby as early as 1951. So whatever it was that Philby compromised from Angleton's inebriated luncheons must have been old history.

Yet it is also interesting that the Philby defection, when he went from Lebanon to Moscow, occurred in 1963. January of that year. And Philby is mentioned in the Mitrohkin Archives.

That also leads me to an expanded interpretation of "Carlos Contract" page 4.

The black and white lithograph by Sequieros fits above the word "communist." It is one of three art-works featuring Zapata with a horse, and two of those fit as diagonal squares in the knight chessboard pattern. So the page actually explains Phillips' dual identity -- Bishop, for moving among those whose loyalties were under scrutiny or still suspect; Knight as a pseudonym when working with others. Veciana knew Phillips as "Bishop." If you accept Judyth Baker's testimony, Oswald knew Phillips as "Phillips." If you don't accept Judyth Baker, then the fallback position relies on the document declassifications about Oswald.
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Bang the iron knocker of Justice

Postby Phil Dragoo » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:12 am

We saw the happy Abbie Hoffman, saw him swing his fireplace poker in an arc. "This is liberated territory--come on up and get me."

He was flanked by two uniformed Chicago patrolmen. He would die: his detractors say by suicide; his supporters, by murder.

That is the looking glass. We do it: it's good; you, it's evil--simple as that.

There was no question Mark Rudd was excited as a kid with a new toy, Christmas, birthday--Lou Reed "rushing on my run, an' I feel jus' like Jesus' son". Running with his Maoists from the park October 8-11, 1969, with Bill Ayers son of power.

Chased by Daley's police army which now works for the son who now works for the Bill Ayers Maoists, ask Anita Dunn.

And so it was particularly ironic when the red armbands ran up to bang the iron knocker of the Justice Department at the Nixon Counterinnaugural January 19, 1969, and the shirtsleeved lawyers on the second floor flashed the one-legged peace sign, grinning smugly.

They held the secrets, had run the Warren sham, would run the HSCA sham.

Secret Service on every corner that night, the lapel pin gleaming in the cold darkness.

Web Hubbell had said he was sent by his boss to find out about JFK. His boss who was in Prague and Moscow thanks to CIA connections. Who used such to handle the so-depressed Foster. Web whose wife was "afraid of Marsha" the last person to see Foster alive.

The force is fickle and flows from figure to figure. Whoever has the current power to hypnotize as did the mimes at the close of 1966 Antonioni Blow-Up making David Hemmings stop and pick up and throw back their tennis ball.

So the TSBD and its employees was just one more traveling show.

CIA defector Edward Lee Howard who escaped El Dorado south of Santa Fe with the aid of his wife, a tape recorder, and a mannequinn, fell down some steps at his dacha outside Moscow and died of broken neck in 2002 at the age of 50.

The FBI which failed to stop his 1985 flight failed again in finding anything in the home of Wen Ho Lee, anything except of course his house, after getting lost, and its flashlight, after losing it at the beginning of the two-hour search.

Our safety and security lies in such hands as these. We remain vigilant.
User avatar
Phil Dragoo
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:09 am

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:37 am

Phil -- you should write a book of poetry dealing with this stuff.

I'm just left with a sense that the simplistic nonsense they teach kids in grade-school is so far removed from the real world.

There either was a conspiracy, or there wasn't. But it's clear to me now that there was. The implications? It's important to sort those implications out, without an ideological or emotional taint.

And that's still a very difficult thing to do. Think about it. Very difficult.

I'm still turning over in my mind the notion that we wouldn't be tearing around Tora-Bora and running drone attacks today if we hadn't compromised so many principles several decades ago. And there's always the money behind it. Would we be hanging on the edge of our chair today, making bets that the Iranian students would overthrow the Mullahs, if we hadn't toppled the Mossadegh regime in the early '50s? Historians today are sure that Mossadegh would've struck a deal with the West. But the Brits wanted the oil, and they didn't want to pay the oil-workers more than 60-cents a day.

My friends are saying "It's time to move on! Write your book. But enough of the JFK thing already!" Maybe everybody looks back at history as a disaster-filled path. I just don't think we see the enormity of it, because we tell ourselves that it all worked out for the better, when we're still mopping up Cold War messes.
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Bob » Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:55 am

Randy Bednorz wrote:Phil -- you should write a book of poetry dealing with this stuff.

I'm just left with a sense that the simplistic nonsense they teach kids in grade-school is so far removed from the real world.

There either was a conspiracy, or there wasn't. But it's clear to me now that there was. The implications? It's important to sort those implications out, without an ideological or emotional taint.

And that's still a very difficult thing to do. Think about it. Very difficult.

I'm still turning over in my mind the notion that we wouldn't be tearing around Tora-Bora and running drone attacks today if we hadn't compromised so many principles several decades ago. And there's always the money behind it. Would we be hanging on the edge of our chair today, making bets that the Iranian students would overthrow the Mullahs, if we hadn't toppled the Mossadegh regime in the early '50s? Historians today are sure that Mossadegh would've struck a deal with the West. But the Brits wanted the oil, and they didn't want to pay the oil-workers more than 60-cents a day.

My friends are saying "It's time to move on! Write your book. But enough of the JFK thing already!" Maybe everybody looks back at history as a disaster-filled path. I just don't think we see the enormity of it, because we tell ourselves that it all worked out for the better, when we're still mopping up Cold War messes.


Randy, on the front page of this site, Wim has this caption...

"Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today." - Wim Dankbaar

Wim is SO right. There is no doubt that the United States changed forever that day, and that the organization responsible for that act are STILL in charge today. Some people have died, and the names have changed...but the organization is still here. 9/11 is DIRECTLY connected to 11/22/1963 (again...look at Operation Northwoods). Everything that has transpired since is also connected. Things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, oil prices, the Wall Street profits and the bailout, healthcare costs balooning, the massive war profiteering by Blackwater, Halliburton and the like. JFK tried to control things like that. He truly tried. That's why he died. That's why we are where we are.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby bob franklin » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:10 am

I couldn't agree more with the above sentiments. JFK's assassination is without a doubt the single greatest bottleneck in recorded history. Think about it. Every socio-political, economic, or ecological problem faced today either led to it, passed through it, or sprang from it. Try getting THAT idea across in the checkout aisle of your favorite supermarket, something I've literally attempted. People look at you like you have antlers growing from your head. Btw, I wound up at this forum as a result of what I like to call a "screwy rabbit" moment not unlike your "brandy snifter" experience.While watching one of those fun and informative docs on discovery/history/I forget, I thought about CIA involvement. I of course thought of GHWB & proceeded to a websearch on "Bush involvement JFK" & found myself here. Interesting similarity of experience... :wink:
(Hey... I think that might have been that screwy rabbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Last edited by bob franklin on Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Never trust a man who doesn't like dogs, & never EVER trust anyone your dog doesn't like.
User avatar
bob franklin
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 4:16 pm

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:46 am

Bob! Like our 42nd President said often -- "Ah feel your pain!"

There was more propaganda fallout from the assassination. The way the "getaway" of LBJ was choreographed, it would promote the idea that the system "worked" as authority was passed from the dead President to the Vice-President. It would seem that the assassination was "not a Constitutional Crisis" like Watergate or the Clinton impeachment or even Iran-Contra.

As much as Stone's film has been vilified, it presented the facts about National Security Action Memorandum 263 -- the cover-letter to the Vietnam Trip Report, outed by Daniel Elsberg in the Pentagon Papers. This was just the tip of the iceberg, though. There was another NSAM addressed to the Director of NASA, to initiate a "cooperation in space" initiative with the Russians. Most importantly, there was the October 4, 1963 Pacific Edition of the Stars & Stripes military newspaper, announcing Kennedy's plan to withdraw from Vietnam by 1965 December -- further buttressed by the various drafts and versions of the MacNamara-Taylor Vietnam Trip Report of October 10.

LBJ escalated the war, fed misinformation by hawks among the Joint Chiefs. Nixon continued it, to pursue "peace with honor" at the cost of some additional 25,000 body-bags. The Hawks and Right-wingers amongst us will argue justifications for the actual history that followed as stronger than the "what if" scenarios of a history that never occurred.

It seems now, given the publication of the Mitrohkin Archives and the declassification of the KGB archives after the USSR fell apart, that much of the Cold War was aggravated by American initiatives. Plots against Castro and the Bay of Pigs prompted installation of the Soviet missiles. Increases in American defense spending prompted increases in USSR spending.

It has been argued and will always be argued that massive expenditures in pursuit of an extended Cold War by the US bankrupted the Soviet Union -- thus defeating communism. But the facts show that the Russian economy was in a shambles before Khruschev took the reins of power after Stalin's death. It was a system crumbling under its own weight. It wouldn't have mattered much whether the US spend $3 trillion or the actual $6 trillion on the Cold War for the result. But $3 trillion less spent on guns would be $3 trillion more spent on butter, and look where we are now?

Hawks like to argue their interpretation of the "Founders." But the Founders warned about foreign entanglements, like our relationship with Britain compelling Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA to topple Mossadegh and install the Shah. Lansdale set up the Saigon Military Mission in 1952 (as dramatized in Graham Greene's fiction) -- because of our alliance with the French.

World War II left the world in a pit of distrust. Our Hawks want us to believe that the USSR was bent solely on world domination. But they had lost some 50 million people to Hitler's armies; the suffering and hardships exemplified by the Battle of Stalingrad are experiences totally divorced from the American experience. They as much wanted a buffer zone in Eastern Europe, fearful of what might happen again. Had not Germany started two world wars?

Then, there was Imperial Japan's plan for a "Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." It was a plan, and they really meant to implement it. It was a complete materialization of an American bias we call the "Yellow Peril Myth." The Australians felt threatened: the Japanese had a foothold on New Guinea, and only MacArthur's Buna campaign stopped it dead in its tracks.

So ignoring the Chinese experience with the Rape of Nanking, the Yellow Peril Myth provided a platform for an Asian Domino Theory -- flying in the face of actual Vietnamese history and Ho Chi Minh's lobbying for help from Truman.

But maybe the Kennedy assassination has other implications -- more subtle but just as important. It was a coup d'etat and a derailment of a Constitutional process and head of state. It must have set a precedent for the very thing Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech.
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Parallel universes

Postby Phil Dragoo » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:58 am

No president has sought to correct the record.

Congress has failed to expose the truth.

The intelligence and law enforcement agencies have continued the obfuscation.

We pursue the truth because we burn with a fire which only truth can quench.

The caution to eschew the partisan lens came first from Washington.

We must clear up the killing of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Every man and woman will add his and her particular REASON--and each and all of us know it must be done.

The imperative carries the BECAUSE clause which includes EVERY universe yet to come.

EVERY universe for this nation and this global race of homo sapiens will be infinitely better when we have settled this.

We are not making papier mache Statue of Liberty only to be ground under the tracks and treads of the Strike Hard Beetles Who Know What's Best.

It suited the politicians of Left and Right to leave this murder unouted.

The current president wouldn't even condemn the shooting of the young woman in Tehran.

Eric Blair posited a tripartite indistinguishable totalitarian geopolitical board eternally fighting over the undeclared quadrilateral.

Only seven thousand of the tens of millions of China's young internet users could access Obama's speech--and he, as all of them do, avoids talking to the "dissidents"--hah, fellow dissidents--we dissent from ALL LIES. No matter how pretty.

With the bubbling inspiration of a new enlightenment: Jimmy Files has nothing to lose; Randy finds symbolism in the art and arts of Phillips, Hunt, Angleton; Horne unmasks the Z-film; Gilbride raises the curtain on the TSBD Playhouse; and Jim DiEugenio and our friends continue to power the funicular up to the summit for the majestic view.

It is a great age to be alive.
User avatar
Phil Dragoo
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:09 am

The Angle on Angelton is no Angle at all Randy.

Postby SeamusCoogan » Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:28 pm

Randy mate great job on that new piece of material.

However, lets bring you back to ground shall we. I saw your reply to an old post that I never got a chance to reply back to you with.

But I just wanna kick off by asking you a question Randy. Namely, when did I ever say to you in my post that Mongoose was run from Angletons desk?

"I've heard someone say "whenever I see a book labeled 'autobiography,' I think 'fiction.'" I suppose you'd have to take that approach with Helms' "A Look Over My Shoulder." And you'd want to ask about motives. Rather than mentioning Oswald, Helms says that counter-intelligence with regard to Operation Mongoose was not overseen by Angleton's office."

The reply was in a manner as if I did not know or was unaware. Now Randy, I know you thought you were being helpful but in short I found it very condescending.

I came into this thing some 17-18 years ago (I've said 17 but I cant really decide lol and my maths sucks but seeing as its 2010 shortly I can only guess thats been the span of it). Like you it was TMWKK not JFK that aroused my interest. How I missed it at the Cinema is a long story and it confounds me to this day. About one of the things I can honestly outright that I did exceedingly well lol was that I realised at that there's people who know way, way, way more than myself and sheesh and I wanted to learn from them. Till this day I'm still learning.

I'm also learning about people and from what I can discern mate you are good people, but good people make mistakes, get cocky and think they know everything just like anyone else. Randy, I am a student and studying at Masterate level now, Im sorry but I am a research specialist myself I have to be so please no lessons or advice unless I specifically ask. In fact Randy its pretty clear to myself and anybody who will read what follows that it is you, not me who should be asking a few more questions.

Carl Ogelsby a great researcher who was one of my early inspirations once said about the Kennedy assassination.[/b]

"We must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations."

That was when I gave up on examining pictures of potential gunmen and started my quest to find the single best sources on the Kennedy assassination. (Now I can't say that I read the Spy Novels of dead spooks looking for cryptic clues but hey to each their own)
If you believe Phillips was the key player in the assassination and he organised the entire event and ran the agency with Dulles, Helms and Angelton as his underlings or puppets like you seem to be alluding. Then thats your outlook. But when you start shelling out advice do I begin to get a little worried.

I grow even more concerned when you say that Frank Wisner was the Director of the CIA? Maybe, you misworded it and maybe I have overreacted? Meanwhile you may wanna take a look at a list of people who actually ran the agency?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12678229/ns ... -security/

Okay, I'll put that down to a misprint but theres no escaping your central premise. In which the teachings of venerable master Ogelsby in my opinion have been needed.

[b]DULLES


Allen Dulles was the longest serving director of the Central Intelligence Agency ever. He was the first ever civilian official elected to the position and had lobbied hard for it's creation. Dulles had been involved in intelligence since the first world war and perhaps before hand if his stint in India as an English Teacher is anything to run on. After his being fired after the Bay of Pigs it is now widely considered that through established back channels that existed until the day he died in that he was the spiritual leader of the gang with the most contacts of anyone within and without the agency.

Randey I advise you seriously look at the links between Dulles, Ann Bancroft and the Paine family. Not to mention Dulles words to the effect if that information ever got out he would be in trouble.

The most popular researchers (as seemingly adjudged by members on this forum) Bob Groden, Wim Dankbaar, Jim Marrs, Jim Di (am I missing anybody else?) all from varying walks and views. All, and I mean all seem to regard Dulles as being there or there abouts in terms of the assassination. When you start getting researchers agreeing like this (no mean feet lemme assure you). I honestly cannot understand how some one like David Atlee Phillips was in charge of the entire operation (which from my glimpses of your work unless I am much mistaken you are going for). Now, Unless you have some massively earth shattering evidence Randy outside of interpreting the writings of a long dead David Atlee Phillips (which you seem to be pushing as hard evidence) at the expense of some rather profound developments in the last twenty years it may not hurt to conform your thinking a little, to keep pace with your discoveries.


DEAD MAN WRITING


While it does make for some quite rightly fascinating conversation. And your insights are provoking. It almost feels like listening to Beatles and Led Zep records backwards for something spooky. Now, I bet Bob can recall the classic Judas Priest case when a young man and his friend blew each others heads off in a suicide pact. Now, the Band went to court and the surviving boy blamed the band. During the case it was revealed that their were indeed subliminal messages in the songs. They consisted of rather banal anecdotes about peppermints and 'Do it'. Now this got the prosecution up in arms. But Rob Halford pointed out that it could be anything. Furthermore it was revealed upon cross examination that the boy who survived had been treated horrifically at the hands of his father and the case against the band collapsed. What I am trying to say here Randy is that. With the sort of evidence you are discussing even were Phillips alive it would be extremely hard to prove he was writing anything more than a novel despite his history. Some elements might get bought up but from what I know of such cases its very hard to prove and against trained liars.
We'll you would have to be a huge betting man to believe that it would put them away.

Yet this gets us to a key point. So much of the evidence is anecdotal in this case Randey. So much has been destroyed yet so much in some ways has been revealed. All evidence put forward to any court is only as good as the lawyer and anecdotal evidence accounts for large numbers of cases. For instance in the Bugliosi debate on ITV in the UK the defence lawyer Spence clearly didnt have a clue or the passion for it. The same thing happened Randey in the very first Liberty Lobby trial with Hunt, the Lobby staff and lawyer had next to no knowledge of the case and allowed Hunt to trounce them with a barrage of character witnesses and some award winning acting. OJ Simpsons trial wash awash with anecdotal evidence from the defence. In a modern case today if it went to trial the defence would have one hell of a time. Because The Warren Report, like Case Closed and like Reclaiming history have been revamps and rehashes of an old brief. Each incarnation like the one before has also been eviscerated. The ARRB has been an enormous help also. Generally speaking if you teamed say Jim Di and John Douglas together with Mark Lane or a lawyer of that calibre with a genuine feel for the case. Its as good as done. What your missing out Randey is that those in charge know it. Hence why it never got bought to trial.

The reason the perpetrators never got to trial Randey is the same reason that evidence got suppressed in numerous investigations.
They knew that under a fair and just system they would get done. But the problem was and still is Randy these guys are the system and they are'nt just and darn well aint fair.

PHILLIPS: HE RAN THE AGENCY AND KILLED JFK? NEWS TO ME

Now this is not a direct quote from you but this is from what I picked up and it appears you really do believe this.

Mexico City: Phillips is all over it?

In fact I'm fascinated by your insight into such a matter so please do feel free to divulge where you got that information from?
Now, don't worry I've read the Lopez report and I have tried to view as many interviews from Lopez and Hardaway as I can and maybe I didnt listen nor read hard enough. But not once did I get the impression that Phillips was running the agency nor that he had suzeranity over people like Dulles Helms and Angelton from reading him.

In fact the reverse is true as pointed out by George Bailey.

What the Lopez Report documents is tremendous amount of conniving going on with the CIA in regards to Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. Everything from phony cable traffic to top-level agents lying. It is known from document releases that Oswald’s SIG 201 file was under direct control of counter espionage chief James Angleton at his CI/SIG (counter intelligence/special investigation group) and had been since Oswald’s defection in 1959. It has been suggested that Angleton was running the false defector program to the Soviet Union. John Newman in Oswald and the CIA, believes Angleton was running Oswald on operations as an off the books agent and possibly using him to assassinate Kennedy. It was not an uncommon practice for Angleton to run ops around his own station chiefs without their prior knowledge—the “need to know” basis coming into play. James DiEugenio believes Angleton was running the show from HQ while David Philips was taking care of things from the field, in whatever exercise was going on here with Oswald. Both have been caught in numerous lies and you don’t do that unless you have something to hide. Hunter Leake, second in command of CIA station in New Orleans said in an obscure interview that Lee Oswald was used for low level currier work and that his purpose of moving to New Orleans was at the behest of the CIA for further operations. While you can’t prove anything substantial in the area of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, you can prove the cover-ups. They are all over the place and everybody is involved.

George Bailey: http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2009/ ... exico.html

But hey Randy heres the original documents. See what you can conjure up here.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archi ... ?docId=799

The Confessor

Mark Lane looked into Phillips in quite some depth in his great book "Plausible Denial" Yet he has never, said Phillips ran the agency or was the most powerful person in it. Indeed Lane and the angry crowd he debated Phillips in front of cracked his rather cultivated veneer when he bottled it admitting that Oswald probably never showed up at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. You may wanna recall that Lanes reported Phillips being snobbed by his colleagues at dinner afterwards (Lane: Plausible Denial. Pgs 82-86),

How about the classic one from 1986 around the same time when Phillips was quoted by Kevin Walsh, who worked on the HSCA staff and to my knowledge was a private dick in DC at the time.

"My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers."

Gary Buell was in discussion with Sean Phillips, David Phillips nephew. His old man had suspected or had heard that old Davey boy had in some way been involved in the assassination. Jim (Seans dad) and Dave apparently had a fall out about it. Phillips was dying of lung cancer, he called up Jim, who asked "Were you in Dallas that day?" Dave answers, "Yup," and Jim hung up the phone on him.

(Hancock: Someone Would Have Talked. Pgs 181-182).

I mean Phillips is making a real cack handed attempt at being the all powerful conspirator here. He's giving it up like a famous rent boy in 'Old Soho'.

Phillips in the literature.

Now what I did was read through the books I had at my disposal and started counting out how many times certain individuals were mentioned. Now this is an utterly imperfect and flawed process thus I readily accept any and all charges of bias lol. I do hope however, that people with a love for this sort of thing like myself can in the future do an accurate head count reflecting historical trends in perceptions. If anybody is game or knows of such a study for myself to view, please let me know.


Will Blum.


Well someone who should know about CIA involvement in Latin America and world affairs is a fellow by the name of William Blum whose depressingly true book "Killing Hope" which I am assuming you have read Randy can be found online. Though coy on the assassination and mistaken in many turns about the Kennedys. Blum, certainly knew who the big players in the CIA were. Phillips, Helms and Angleton get one mention a piece in some 469 pages. While Dulles and his brother combined are referenced on well over 70.

John Newman.

Lets take a look at another important book like John Newmans 'Oswald and the CIA' which deals with the CIA's paper trail surrounding Oswald which is considered a seminal, if badly written read. Dulles warrants around some 30 pages worth of mentions Phillips only warrants some 13 while Angelton has around 32, Helms gets about 17. (Phillips may well be indeed of more now as in 2003 the Lopez report was released fully un redacted in 2003). I have it from a good reliable source that you have never read this book.

Lisa Pease & Jim Di Eugenio.

Phillips has 16 pages in The Assassinations which is some 8 more than Dulles while theres some 60 odd references to Angelton and our lad Helms comes in at second place. The Assassinations stands as my favourite book in the field. Quite simply because, it doesnt focus on Dulles and it puts the spotlight on the abilities of his fellow travellers Phillips, Angelton and Helms.

Initially I fully struggled with the lack of a Dulles as a central figure. In the Probe stuff I read and initially people (believe it or not) I was skeptical about Lisa and Jim lol. Yes, that stubborn streak in me couldn't accept that Kennedy was in fact a pretty decent guy, rather than the lustful rich boy who thought he ran the world. It was this book and Probes articles that bought home to me that my quest for the best was finally over and without Dulles providing the front, it encouraged me to look out and it grew on me just how powerful and well connected Phillips, Angelton and Helms were to a certain kind of evil.

Thus while Jim regrets not including more about Dulles. In many ways its also a strength. But I would read Jim Douglas's first. The Assassinations though very well written is hampered like Newmans (though not as atrophied) by not being beginner friendly. Now my final pitch for Randy about the assassinations (which I darely hope you read) is that it was this book that actually helped open my eyes to the full extent of your man Phillips powers within the media circles which is an area I'm sure you know he showed an amost genius level of skill in. I have some good information on our boy Phillips and his links to the Dallas press which I can find for you at some stage.

Jim Douglas.

In JFK and the Unspeakable Phillips gets a solid 14 or so entries here, which is excellent considering of course the scale and worthiness of the title. Dulles gets about 26. Helms makes do with 16, whilst Angleton comes home in last place with a 5.

But all of these important authors stop well short of naming him as the agencies king pin as do the others. Now some one whom I find utterly downright annoying at times has written what I believe to be one the best descriptions of Phillips role. I have come across and for granted though it may ignore Helms rather badly it sums up pretty succinctly the power structure at the time. Of which Phillips had become a part.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/scottd.htm.

Gaeton Fonzi.

Now theres no need to count the pages in Fonzi''s book (well if you have a copy of it lemme know the tallys im not going to count the references to the dude off a computer screen lol) Phillips looms as a key figure. But, Randy I say again please point out to me where precisely in Phillips and Fonzi's books it is stated that Phillips was the numero uno Key ringleader. Now I can't agree more with you that Judging by the information presented in "The Last Investigation". and the comments Phillips made in "Nightwatch" from what I have seen of it that he handled Oswald.

I came across a cool article outlining Fonzi's articles for those of you not keen on reading the entire book.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archi ... elPageId=2

Thanks to Cuban Exile and Gaeton Fonzi theres also a full non Google Book edition of the Last Investigation on line.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0019a.html

ANGELTON

Regicide. Yes, Randey you are correct it does really suck. For those of us with a little more experience in such matters like yourself, the idea that Hoover and Angelton planned the assassination is utter ^&*(.

However, I get the feeling Randy your running down Angelton to diminish him in stature by portraying him as enfeebled on behalf of one extremely bad book. This Is like saying Angleton sucked because "The Good Shepard" was terrible. Now, it's well known that Angelton was close to Philby and was embarrassed by his double agency. No argument there but you forget to mention that Angelton went on to remain in his position for at least another 14 years after Philby and you also may wanna reconsider Angeltons driving away of staff. In fact he had people extremely loyal to him in all the years he was there.

Ray Rocca his loyal long serving strong man.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/f ... ries_3.htm

Do a Google Search for Ann Egerter or look into the stuff here.

http://www.ctka.net/pr700-ang.html
and here
http://www.ctka.net/pr900-ang.html

And check out pages 136 -198 for the full run down in the Assassinations.

Oh and I hasten to add that Angletons staff were all around and kicking at the assassination of the President and Oswald.

You may also want to consider the following.

Who cooked up the Soviets did it angle and pushed it as far up the arse of the establishment as he could? Indeed the Russians/Castros agents did it angle is one of the more complex last fall back positions. It stems from a portrayal of a bumbling incompetent agency line. Within this train of disinformation there is often mention made Philby and this is followed by decidedly uneven authors like Trento who has moments of sublime insight/luck/witting limited hang out stooge ie (Hunt memoranda and Liberty Lobby) but then tells us Hunt was there in Dallas that day to assassinate Oswald the KGB double agent and therefore save his beloved Presidents life. If you believe people who believe Breshnev killed Kennedy, how can you trust them with insights into the agency, obviously some things gotta give.

Sure we know the CIA have made some huge cock ups but these mistakes for the most part have been promoted as happening over seas. On a domestic front with congress in their pocket its been somewhat easier.

Refer to the Lisa Pease Probe Links.

As for Congress check out its quashing of the Church and Pike Committees reports.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/hayes

Whose dept covered the CIA's ass with the Warren Commission?

Refer to Lisa Pease and the Probe links

Or go here.

http://hum.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/Paper ... ission.pdf

Who had a direct link to the 2 IC of the Secret Service Paul Paterni whilst serving in the OSS?

DEPUTY CHIEF PAUL J. PATERNI
member of OSS during WWII- worked with James Angleton and
Ray Rocca (liaison to WC); involved in limousine inspection with
Boring, beating Rowley and Kellerman---and the FBI--- to the
punch (skull particles, bullet fragments, vehicle damage/ wind-
shield); involved in LHO income tax check investigation right after
assassination; checked on CIA connections of suspects Mosley and
Homer Echevarria for the Chicago field office- matter was sum-
marily dropped by a call from headquarters telling the field office
agents who spoke to Paterni to send all memos, files, and notebooks
to D.C. and not to discuss the case with anyone!; Thomas Kelley-
liaison to WC: assigned by Paterni to go to Dallas and speak to LHO
[5H67; 7H354,403;13H65]

Vince Palamara: Excerpt from Survivors Guilt. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/03-VP.html

Furthermore please find direct evidence for me that Angeltons pay scale was less than that of Lansdales?

HELMS:

Heres what Randy the local resident expert on Helms writes

this might change when he re-established himself in Dallas/Fort-Worth.

I've heard someone say "whenever I see a book labeled 'autobiography,' I think 'fiction.'" I suppose you'd have to take that approach with Helms' "A Look Over My Shoulder." And you'd want to ask about motives. Rather than mentioning Oswald, Helms says that counter-intelligence with regard to Operation Mongoose was not overseen by Angleton's office. So that corresponds to my idea that Oswald was "lost" to Angleton after the former returned to the US.

Oh does it really Randy do you mind telling that to John Newman, Jim Douglas and Jim Di Eugenio?

It would've been a blind-spot for Angleton, enabling him to imagine all sorts of things about Oswald and not to exclude something insidious about KGB manipulation of him. And you have to temper your common-sense understanding that practical people might discount "KGB mind-control," but a CIA pursuing an MKULTRA program might not discount it so easily.

You Sound more like Edward Epstein here than any body else on this forum I know. Now thats not good.

That leaves Helms. Helms misleads us about Nosenko, for instance, saying that Nosenko said during his interrogation that "I [Nosenko] didn't have anything to do with JFK's assassination." This is Helms' recollection in Helms' autobiography, and we have both a British journalist (Mangold) and an American writer (David Wise) who had interviewed several CIA careerists who insinuate no such thing. Instead, Nosenko had spoken of seeing Oswald's file and that KGB neither "owned" him nor had a clear idea of who actually did. They thought he (Oswald) was "unstable."

By his own account, Helms says he mostly performed "day to day administration" in Directorate of Plans. His career wasn't threatened by the Kennedys, contrary to a Wikipedia entry. He was moving up -- to replace Bissell, for example. He says that when he discovered the Mafia had been involved in Operation Zapata and related projects, he put the kibosh on it. But other stories have the Kennedys discovering the Mafia involvement, [my recollection], so I have to take Helms' remark there with a grain of salt, also.

Then, according to Helms, he was reporting directly to Bobby Kennedy -- as was Lansdale. Helms was supposed to be the CIA's "Man for Cuba."


So in a nutshell you believe Richard Helms. Well that wouldnt surprise me because I know for a fact from a certain source that you apparently had never heard of John Newmans Oswald and the CIA. Randey, now come on dude, thats not the form is it?

Okay so lets start educating your goodself about Helms. By god he's brilliant and as arrogant and clinical SOB as you'd ever hope to meet. Luckily you wont because this excuse against the pro life lobby left this mortal coil in 2002. It's a fair wager he is now organising coups in hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6RuM1DZSJQ

Now have a gander here look at this git discussing the value of democracy (like he should know). Wait till he mentions the joys of liberation the peoples of Grenada face and look at that smirk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms5tP0djVD0&NR=1

For those of you who have not yet seen this outtake of Nixon I find Stones take on Helms rather chilling. Of course its a largely fictionalised account of a meeting that did take place in private, but for a little bit of a shit yourself warp factor 9 check out Helms eyes some 8 minutes in its a very powerful shot from a rather awkwardly filmed scene. To Stones credit his films are pretty darn brilliant and his researchers are usually pretty darn good. I think that Helms is captured in his smug indifference rather well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0t-pLLD2k

Randy by dismissing Helms in such an off of the bat way you ignore a ton of problems in and around Helms.

Helms proudly perjured himself in front of congress and got the most pussy slap on the wrist of all time?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 7214,31000

He oversaw an internal CIA investigation after the assassination to amass all of the dirt on the agency then terminated it by handing it over to Angelton to investigate? Angelton conveniantly turned his attention to the Soviet Division.
This was a brilliant move to expunge any of the dealings Helms, Angelton, Dulles and Phillips had. The bottom line is Whitten got played and where were all those leads he amassed going to? Jim Angeltons office in Virginia. Not Miami and not Mexico City, where David 'Swamp Thing' Phillips, who was running teams all over the Bayous and Everglades of the South Eastern United States resided.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/f ... Said_5.htm

Helms set about monitoring and undermining Garrisons investigation?

http://www.ctka.net/alert-sklartohist.html

Helms destroyed 1000's of documents pertaining to his role in MK Ultra and untold more on other issues?

http://earthops.org/mk_ultra.php

And also here (now if you say he was doing so to protect Phillips I'll never win).

http://www.ctka.net/pr300-mkultra.html

Helms Randy blatanly lied about his role in the Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose?

http://www.jfklancer.com/cuba/castroplots.html

Who lost their rag when he was reminded about the Bay of Pigs thing? If Helms had nothing to do with it he had no need to cry foul.
One question you have never seemed to ponder is that if Phillips was so powerful why then did Nixon send Haldeman to see Director Helms and mention "The Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon didnt go and send him to Philips or Morales did he? Which, if Phillips really organised the hit and was really running the agency and was thus the real power of that organisation that Nixon would make the threat to. You forget Nixon as incompetent as he was would have known about it. Randy I have seen absolutely no evidence that Phillips dominated Helms at all. So I would be amazed at what you can find for me. You may want to read this little bit also.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -6,00.html

Who did Ted Shackley employ at Helms direction. And which figure went onto liase with the HSCA but had ties to the very anti Castro Cubans Oswald was interracting with in Louisiana and whom some mere hours after the assassination named him as public enemy no 1. George Johannides thats who. No, Randy David Phillips didn't hire him.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/f ... Said_6.htm

Who was such good buds with Helms that when he retired in 1973 he would go on to help train the Shahs of Irans brutal secret police force SAVAK in Iran. Of course his good buddy Helms was now the ambassador, well it was Ted 'blonde ghost' Shackley thats who.

http://www.subliminal.org/mugbook/spooks/shackley.html

DRINKIES WITH THE LADS

Randey if you wanna argue the point about Angelton being a lush I really suggest you stop and think of how a brilliant drunk 'lush' by the name of Bill Harvey helped uncover who Philby really was. Harvey, as you well know was of course employed by Helms during Operation Mongoose via the Special Group Augmented in an assassination group called Task Force W. in which Helms worked closely with Operation Mongoose and Murder Solveds chief villain Gen Ed Lansdale.

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf/missile.htm

The HSCA report stating this is online but silly me I forgot to book mark it.

Furthermore Randy you forget that your lads Phillips (Phillips et al Lane pg 94) and Morales (Larry Hancock: Someone Would Have Talked pg 137) it seems WERE often chronic drinkers themselves. I have no doubt Morales was either involved or knew a lot of what went on that fateful day in 1963 and for sure Phillips rated him highly. But is David Morales really someone you would want at the apex of any plot. The guy may have been one of the favoured 'Thugs' and had contacts apparently with top notch figures like Dulles but this criminal genius confessed something akin to the CIA's role in a drunken stupor to a few friends. (Ibid). A good little read about him is posted here by John Simkin. Note how scared our big monster conspirator was of 'his own' people. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmorales.htm

Furthermore he was considered by most accounts to be Ted Shackley's Mexican underling. Not his superior if you could find me evidence that refutes this I'd love to see it. Furthermore I urge you to find me sources that Angelton, Helms or Dulles ever drunkenly blagged anything to anyone?

Guy Bannister was a piss head as well but as crazed as he got he only gave Jack Martin a crack for going through his files on the day of the plot. Though not alcoholics as such E Howard Hunt used to get on it in fine form according to himself, so to did Clay Shaw and Dave Perry two individuals involved in Oswald related operations in Louisiana. In fact Randy if you lived, read about, watched footage and or talked to people at around the time (my Grandparents and parents for instance) it was actually considered pretty standard and acceptable to smoke like a chimney, chug back the Scotch or beer after work, harrass women in the work place and so fourth (gross generalisations but you get what I mean). While it might alarm some people out there who think these guys are machines or unique degenerates. These guys were men of the time, the swingers hep cats at the cutting edge of well "Midnight Climax". (Lane: Plausible Denial pg 76)

Man oh man its no secret Intelligence work has a lot of alcoholics in its ranks. The challenges of putting up a poker face are immense, you are an actor in a role...often for a lifespan (look at Ruth Paine sheeeeesh now thats some damn operative-again not run by Phillips trust me on that). But just ask Mike Frost a Canadian intelligence officer who worked closely with the NSA or somebody you know in there. Government Operatives,like undercover cops have a large percentage of individuals with substance addictions functioning within the very system.

THE PRISCILLA JOHNSON SCHOOL OF AMATEUR PSYCHOLOGY.

As for the psycho analysis of Phillips. Before you made this you were (rather ironically) discussing how the evidence against other conspirators was problematic because of their being to much assumption and not enough concrete evidence thus Phillips had the easiest chance of conviction as a result? Now upon reflection from my first post this is not entirely false. You are correct, by his own admission in one of his books he admitted he handled Oswald and yeah we are all familiar with the famous veciana story. That could well have been used against him in determining his lies and a relationship for sure and the whole house of cards would crumble. But Randey if Garrison had but a fraction of the information available today things could have begun then and there and and of course if we take the perspective of Oswald surviving to a fair trial which is remote.

isnt there a hell of a lot of assumption on your behalf to make such an analysis without having ever met the man? Now even if you are a therapist (I dont know you maybe) thats dangerous territory. Okay. I'll give you massive brownie points if you have gotten hold of Phillips CIA pysch evaluations (which would be gold). But I think that where you going is a little bit to close to Priscilla Johnson lone nut amateur shrink territory.

Now, thats not to say you have no proof at all or insight into his mindsight. Indeed Fonzi in his HSCA report recalls from Veciana that Helms (Bishop) liked to look dapper and watched his weight. Now, that sounds like a fairly normal thing for of guy of his age to be concerned about. He was after all a murderous salesman with the silver tongue. Furthermore Randy the CIA is notoriously filled with handsome two faced cavalier narcissist types. If you want a classic example of this look at E Howard Hunts and Ian Flemmings books of that era. Their characters were embodiments of their fantasies.

Just a quick Google search of guys like Dulles, Helms, Angleton and Philips will reveal glimpses of these guys as emotionally stunted elites. Thus you can't be to selective in personality type. Its the stuff agents are made of. Its not called the charm school for nothing. They were all smart, educated guys and if you have viewed Helms and heard or seen the others talk they all had excessively high opinions or (like Angelton) expectations of themselves. Another issue I feel you may also have not noticed is that Phillips and if Trento's account is correct, Angelton. Were funnily enough, amongst the few individuals marked as suspicious to be considered remorseful of their actions (baring in mind they did a lot of actions Kennedy may well be one of many). Thus I find it a little difficult to see Helms as this unfeeling calculating monster you portray him to be.(Trento: The Secret History of The CIA: 478-479).

'FAMILY FEUD'

Now I am aware of Helms and Phillips dislike for each other (thats old news) but how much of that is shell game and lies? Furthermore no one knows who screwed up what part of if any operation. If indeed it was'nt just typical bullshit in a longtime career rivalry between a pack of arrogant self centered swines. That might be more to the point. Furthermore, regardless of how long the supposed feud had gone on for when you get a darn order from the top brass, by god you do the job and if that job is to do Kennedy I'd imagine you'd damn well do it. I couldnt be to sure but are you somehow trying to imply that Helms was disgusted with what Barnes and Phillips had done? Or that he actually liked President Kennedy? Is that what your saying? Well Randy mate I think you might be barking up the wrong tree.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Paren ... on_DT.html

HYPNOSIS, MIND CONTROL & CONSPIRAHYPOCRACY.

Now if anyone cares to read John Marks groundbreaking book "The Search For The Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control" Anyone can see what they were cooking up for the unsuspecting populace and David Phillips, Randy does not get a mention in the book, at all. As you can imagine Dulles and Helms practically own the book. Now Oswald does appear but only in relation to Nosenko and not in the context of his being a candidate. Furthermore in many ways by 1963 the project had apparantly been shut down due to the gross problems in its application. (Marks: Pgs 145-147).

Now, the cynical can say it kept on going and in some ways I'd say the cynics like Curt Rowlet could make a pretty darn good point it continued. Further more Rowlet doesnt vent steam about Oswald being at Atsugi where some experiments apparently took place. Instead he actually targets the bizarre Kerry Thornley, Oswald's friend (and possible double) who became something of a minor public figure in around the time of the 60's anti war movement and the rise of Manson.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/marsh/mkultra/mkultra.txt

And if you like extra nuts with your 'Manchurian Candidates meal' check out Jim Hougan.

http://www.jimhougan.com/JimJones.html

Randy, if your getting your information from generally 'cranky' sites like Antipas Ministries (say it isnt so) or reading glib stuff like Frank Camper (who gets nailed here rather resoundingly in the link by John Bartholomew). Then you are really pushing a ton of poo uphill with a balsa wood stick.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.ba ... amper.html

Now I acknowledge there exists the possibility that Oswald may have taken some LSD at Atsugi or been involved in some experiments there and it would be rash of me to dismiss that. But it would not be unfitting for myself to think he never did that or even so what?

As you can see below from what appears to be footage of mid to late 60's British Marines. Military experiments were common through out the intervening years in many armed forces world wide.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 628627413#

But Randy you really crack me up here now I've gotta say this is really quite something.

What else do we have of a factual basis to suspect Helms? This is a serious question -- I'm looking for more facts.

Well Randy my friend your not gonna find many facts digging around in dead spy novelists books and not reading the Assasinations, Oswald and the CIA, JFK and the Unspeakable and practically anything else of importance in the case. Espeicially when we all know their works are often an extension of their real life endeavours. Its nothing in it at all and nothing that surprises me.

But its now I feel that Randy has entered the fatal realm of what I term "Conspirahypocricy", that is the deletion of certain factual elements to create a seemless whole through over confidence or bending reality to match ones own version of it. Now, I think as a researcher we can all be a little guilty in some ways because we all have moments of ignorance and of course we have our biases. My god I know I have them. But, heres my problem. Helms (as stated previously) ran much of MK Ultra and then destroyed the evidence. This of course was one of the issues I mentioned before challenging your idea that Helms was a none event. Furthermore unless I am mistaken from what you said mate are you saying Phillips was some kind of trigger man or hypnotist of Manchu Oswald?

Thats clearly the implication I am drawing from what you have posted thus far to all and sundry.

Because Randy mate, I would love for you to tell me what kind of mind controlled agent calls himself a 'Patsy' to waiting television cameras and wants to get a lawyer. Did you also know that it looks like Ruth Paine never attempted to contact John Abt on Oswalds behalf after he tried to make the call and requested her to keep trying.
(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiv ... 14946.html)

Thus its highly unlikely this unreturned phone call was some bizarre trigger situation. How many Manchurian Candidates do you know who were also operating as FBI informants and may well have prevented previous assassination attempts? (Douglas: 363-364) I mean if Oswald was a manchurian candidate wouldnt he say "I killed him it was me"? No Randy he vehemently protested his innocence (Ibid Pgs 365-366) And a final point I shall make Randy is that I dont buy the line he was killed because he awoke from his 'suggestive' state and realised he was being framed.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... id=4492865)

Now Oswald was quite clearly coerced and manipulated for the task at hand and was likely given false assurances by his handlers (whom he tried to contact via a phone call which Douglas believes caused his death). Note he didn't call Phillips. But he also seems (in my opinion to have genuinely loved playing the role of the secret agent under cover of what ever shade). Now, I do agree with Randy and Bob that there were different Oswald's being run (probably not as many as we would think but undoubtedly more than the Commissions and the HSCA were prepared to deal with). I also think that there may well be something with Thornley, being manipulated in some way as outlined earlier. Thats the path where I would go down, the path of Oswald himself is slightly less credible and not born out by any evidence I can see..

THE KILLING IN MY NUTSHELL.

look as much I would love to think I have all the answers, that I have all the best sources and so fourth. Thats ego talking. I'd rather die than call or consider myself an expert on who did it and why. This is where I tend to put my faith in the spirits of those who have troden the path before me accumulating and accumulating their wisdom as best I can. The accumulated evidence as far as I can see is that the Washington and Virginia based lads Dulles, Angleton, Helms do seem to occupy rather more dominant positions in the CIA hierarchy than their wide ranging shop floor operatives like David Phillips who though undoubtedly powerful seems at the very most to be the/or a point man coordinating the act.

Thus its the shopfloor in which, (unless im horribly mistaken) we encounter the real mystery because all of these CIA clowns of the Dulles era totally loved 'fun n games'. Thus it's hard to make sense of who was ultimately designated as being in charge of the ground operation. If we take the view that Phillips was the nominal head of this dept at this juncture. (Murder Solved seems to have a bias towards Phillips, Roselli and Lansdale in this and thats really not too bad a punt). But lets not forget that theres also the likes of Bob Maheu who contacted the mob on the CIA's behalf in the first place and depending on whom you read Bill Harvey.

So with me being stingey as heck I won't stump for anything down there 100%. Look you could you could lose your mind thinking about it. Due to the winds of fate, secrecy, false trails, promotion, demotion and conveniant retirement its hard to know who at this end really was the money so to speak. Thus I'll venture a guess for you all at the top lol but Im not man enough to take a punt in the real muck.

I've said it so many times and I'll say it again unless I am badly mistaken (any researchers reading this mentioned below please please please let me know and I'll kindly delete you) the view I have advocated above seems to myself to be something that resides in the collected consciousness of the research community who believe U.S intelligence had something to do with it. Now, maybe by interepretation of this ham fisted and wrong. I mean. This is a forum I'm sure someone will lol.

And I'd like to think (hopefully not foolishly) that the people listed would'nt be to upset with my appraisal of a potential scenario. Thus I really think Randy your gonna have to really blow me away for me to change my opinion on this. Or if you like why don't you put your scenario together with mine and lets email some people. That could be some fun to get there opinions are you game? No, I would suggest you spare yourself the humiliation.

Lets try some people Jim Di, John Newman, Lisa Pease, Mark Lane, Jim Douglas, Greg Parker, Gaeton Fonzi himself lets see Sean Phillips, Larry Hancock, Harold Weisberg, Deborah Conway,
Last edited by SeamusCoogan on Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:56 am, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
SeamusCoogan
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Your Angle on Angelton is no Angle at all It's BUNK!

Postby Bob » Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:36 pm

SeamusCoogan wrote:Randy mate great job on the Phillips Bug Memo and like everyone else I find your posts. Well written and often incisive.

But one or two swallows doesnt make a summer.

In essence you believe that Phillips had more grunt than Dulles? Are you serious? What sort of advice are you giving anybody with that Utter Bunk? Man, hey you can think that Johnson had a hand in it, but well, it was his pinky finger if anything.

If you want to give people a good review of Regicide and the bollocks thats in it why not give them a link here.

http://www.ctka.net/djm.html

Okay its Seamus using another darn link to Jim. Lol. But whose would I rather someone read Randy your take or Jims? I put that to anybody here. Honestly do you think you are better than him?

Heck you even sent him that brilliant document you unearthed, and if its genuine as it appears to be its a really cool contribution. Maybe I'm a little defensive of the chief. I dunno, but whats good for the goose isnt good for the gander is it? At the same time as you seek his advice on the document. You obviously understand little of his work or you would have come across the above link to post on here nor would I be opening up a can of whip ass.

In all honesty I have massive problems with what you have written above MASSIVE PROBLEMS Randy.

I'm known here for being pretty cagey at the best of times but I would like to think that I have the respect of those here enough to say that when I have a massive problem I'm not just kicking sand and I give credit where credits due. Like anyone else.
If that sounds arrogant I'm sorry. I am not implying I am perfect in all this (as Bob has clearly seen I can still make howlers, like when I didn't check my old notes but decided to take a quick glance at the Wikipedia and then pronounced Prescott Bush as dying in 1963. Bob I shall be forever grateful).

But my seeming ignorance of Bush was due to discovering some years previously (to my satisfaction) that Prescott and George Bush were only two of hundreds of CIA Business psychophants. Now I didnt start out as a doubting Thomas looking for evidence to back my viewpoints. I was quite enthusiastic about it but well it kinda fell flat. Now Randy, never seems to mention Bush. But as people here know quite clearly that one of my pet peeves is the Bush's organised the JFK hit brigade. Look, theres no denying they may well have had some insights into some operations and theres no doubt GHBW was a long time contact of the agency before the assassinaton and may have played a role in it.

Now I came into this thing some 17-18 (I've said 17 but I cant really decide lol and my maths sucks) years ago and like Randy it was TMWKK not JFK that aroused my interest. How I missed it at the Cinema is a long story and confounds me to this day. After seeing the TMWKK I began with a central tennant basically that there were people who knew way more than myself and today there are still people whose knowledge of vast tracts of information just blow me away and of course there are the people who surprise me with little nuggets and gems. Im learning all the time and still continue too. Carl Ogelsby a great researcher was one of my early inspirations who once said about the Kennedy assassination.


"We must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations."

That was when I gave up on examining pictures of the gunmen and started my quest to find the single best sources on the Kennedy assassination. If you believe Phillips was the key player in the assassination and he organised the entire event as you seem to be alluding to and for you to dismiss people like Angelton and Helms so flippantly in my opinion it places you very much at the beginning of that journey or giving yourself a premature end, anybody here will tell you that.

Who commissioned a CIA internal investigation after the assassination and then terminated it by handing it over to Angelton? Who set about monitoring and undermining Garrisons investigation? Who destroyed 1000's of documents pertaining to MK Ultra and untold more on other issues? Well, it wasn't Howdy Doody. It was Richard Helms and he was a slippery, smart SOB. Now I am aware of Helms and Phillips dislike for each other (thats old news) but how much of that is shell game and lies? Furthermore no has ever asked adequately why their relationship changed after the assassination? Or who screwed up what part of the operation to kill the President? If indeed it was'nt just careerist bullshit from a pack of arrogant self centered swines.

Helms, now he worked with Ted Shackley of JM WAVE Fame rather closely during his time examining the middle east. If Phillips was so powerful why then did Nixon send Haldeman go to see Director Helms and mention "The Bay of Pigs Thing"
Nixon didnt go and send him to Philips or Morales did he? Which, because if Phillips really organised the hit and was really running the agency and was thus the real power of that organisation it was Helms who appointed Johannides to the darn same JM Wave who had ties to the anti Castro Cubans Oswald was interracting with. If you don't believe me well check this out.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/f ... Said_6.htm

Are you trying to imply that our hero Helms was disgusted with what Barnes and Phillips had done or that he actually liked President Kennedy? As for the psycho analysis of Phillips. Before you made this you were discussing how the evidence against other conspirators was problematic because of their being to much assumption and not enough concrete evidence that Phillips had the easiest chance of conviction as a result? Unless you have gotten hold of Phillips pysch evaluations. Be very careful your heading into Priscilla Johnson territory. Indeed was Phillips running her in Russia? No, you may wanna look into her and her ties.

Anybody who has read as much as you have would have seen from the accumulated evidence that the Washington lads Dulles, Helms, Angleton and their wide ranging agent David Phillips were likely the key figures in this horrific mess. Generally speaking this is not some Jack the Ripper 'who done it' But the consensus is that Dulles is generally at the apex and it looks like Angelton are the ones at the very height of the foodchain.

One of the only person I know in the community actively promoting the whole Phillips did it by himself is or was John Simkin. Not even Larry Hancock goes as far to say it was Phillips who organised the whole thing and in "Somebody Would Have talked" He spends a lot of time in the Cuban Bay of pigs area and yet sadly seems to falls for the Helms non interest in the Bay of Pigs Bull. I like Larry but thats most likely a mistake on his behalf and as for George Morales being one of the king pins again thats Larry whose in a clear minority on the issue and he's mates with Lamar Waldron whose book Ultimate Sacrifice Len Osanic calls "The Ultimate Sack of Shit".


Helms who proudly perjured himself in front of grand juries? Yeah I'd believe him for sure


Returning to Angleton:

Now to say that he was not at the centre of it is just not born out in reality. I am stunned to be honest. :shock:

All I can say is who cooked up the Soviets did it angle? Whose dept covered the CIA's ass with the Warren Commission? Who had a direct link to the 2 IC of the Secret Service whilst serving in the OSS? Who planned the motorcade route two extremely favoured members of the Secret Service? Randy please point out to me where precisely in Phillips and Fonzi's books it was ever stated that Phillips was the numero uno Key ringleader. Philips is more likely to be a possible co-planner or convenor and/or a controlling officer thats for sure. Furthermore as for Morales yeah he's involved for sure but his right hand man was also Helms buddy and Morales boss Ted Shackley. Furthermore please find evidence for me that Angeltons pay scale was less than that of Lansdales?

I've said it so many times and I'll say it again Jim Di Eugenio, Lisa Pease, Jim Douglas, Gerald McKnight, Talbot, Donald Gibson, Garrison, John Newman, Lane, John Kelin, Jim Hougan, John Armstrong, Jefferson Morley, Rex Bradford, Peter Dale Scott (when he's not in mafia did it mode) Weisberg, Vince Salandria bits of Marrs, Summers and Groden vast tracts of Prouty, and primary sources like the Warren Report, Church/Pike HSCA Committees and so fourth (which I expect you have read) generally seem to back up nearly every single point I make with regards to the people in charge of the operation. A lot of people on murder solved (taking my neutrality on the Lansdale angle) despite our different ways of getting there all seem to share the same rough idea about the top bunch that did it and the roles in which they functioned.

Now of the authors mentioned above not one of them (that I recall) discuss Oswald as being a Manchurian candidate. The candidates that have often been deemed as classic examples are unfortunate souls like Sirhan Sirhan, Hinkley Junior and Mark Chapman who were all arrested on the spot. Furthermore, what kind of crappy mind controlled agent calls himself a patsy to waiting television cameras? Tries to get a lawyer (did you know that Ruth Paine never contacted Mr Abt on Oswalds behalf Randy?)

I mean if Oswald was a manchurian candidate wouldnt he say "I killed him it was me"? Adam Curtis I discovered backed this idea in one of the few floors in his great documentaries (which might have seen it enter the public conscience) in a fashion but other than that seemingly all of the people who carry any weight don't buy it.

Are you also suggesting that somehow Phillips was a hypnotist? Thats clearly the implication I am drawing here.

Now Oswald was definitely coerced and manipulated for the task at hand and was likely given false assurances by his handlers (whom he tried to contact via a phone call which Douglas believes caused his death). But he genuinely loved playing the role of the secret agent under cover of what ever shade.

Now if you wanna argue the point about Angelton being a lush I really suggest you stop and think of how a brilliant 'lush' by the name of Bill Harvey who helped uncover Philby was. I also invite you to contact the above authors and explain why you think Angelton was a simpleton in all of this and or that Helms didnt support the assassination or was not involved. Furthermore your lads Phillips and Morales WERE chronic drinkers themselves. Morales who by the way confessed something akin to the CIA's role in a drunken stupor to a few friends. Now thats a true professional and thats the sort of key man at the head of the plot you really want him on your team? Who did Angelton, Helms or Dulles ever drunkenly blag to? Guy Bannister was a piss head as well but as crazed as he got he only gave Jack Martin a crack for going through his files on the day of the plot. Though not alcoholics as such E Howard Hunt used to get on it in fine form according to himself, so to did Clay Shaw and Dave Perry two individuals at the higher end of operations in Louisiana.

In fact if you read about, watch movies of the era and talk to people at around the time (my Grandparents for instance) it was actually considered pretty standard and acceptable to smoke like a chimney, chug back the Scotch or beer after work, sexually harrass in the work place and so fourth (gross generalisations but you get what I mean). While it might alarm some people out there who think these guys are machines or unique degenerates. These guys were the men of the time. Intelligence work has a lot of alcoholics in its ranks. The challenges of putting up a poker face are immense, you are an actor in a role...often for a lifespan. Look at Ruth Paine sheeeeesh now thats some damn operative. But just ask Mike Frost a Canadian intelligence officer who worked closely with the NSA. Government Operatives, much like undercover cops have a large percentage of individuals with alcohol and substance addictions functioning within the system. Yes, we are in fact largely run by lying, cynical, alcoholic paranoid depressives. Pass me a beer please lol.

I have disliked intensely coming down like a ton of bricks here and I am fully aware that I may be coming across as if I'm in some big pissing contest about whose theory is better. I like to think I offer no real theories. But, a possible view to it, But this is not my own viewpoint any more than the air we all breath. Its out there and its a loose take on a consensus of what is generally considered to be the best research we have. And I'll be honest, I feel your spoiling some good research on your own behalf with a premise which I feel disrespects the massive efforts of researchers far knowledgable in many ways than yourself.


Good debate here...although my friend Seamus can be a bit headstrong with his approach. I understand the points that Seamus makes, but I also know that Randy is a research scholar that looks at evidence...both real and abstract. I have learned much from Randy...especially about the personality of David Phillips. Now I believe that Allen Dulles was the main man in terms of power in the conspiracy, but I also think that Phillips was a MAJOR player. A level below, along with Ed Lansdale. Poppy Bu$h was below that level, but he too was a player, as it was he who was the recruiter for Operation 40...the assassination arm of the CIA. Seamus makes strong arguments for Richard Helms and James Angleton, and I think they were involved as well. But to me, it was Phillips and Lansdale that made the events at Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 happen for real. In terms of Lee Harvey Oswald perhaps being a Manchurian Candidate, the real question is WHICH Oswald? There was definitely more than one. In terms of JFK assassination researchers, I think Jim DiEugenio is right at the top. But I have also heard or read things that Jim has said or written, that I did not agree with. That same goes for others such as Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Fletcher Prouty, Jack White, Wim and many others. But we are ALL on the same team. We must remember that and not fight amongst ourselves. I think this quote reflects the research community that we are part of...

No one is perfect...but sometimes while one is chasing perfection...they can catch excellence.

That is how I see our community, even with the different theories that may or may not be agreed upon. We are sure a hell of lot better than the lone nut club and their ridiculous banter. Let's continue our research, our learning, our teaching and our debate. Our strength will continue to grow.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

PreviousNext

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bruce Patrick Brychek and 7 guests