Is it news or propaganda? How can you tell?
Read and learn how Real History informs the present, empowering you to wake up and smell what's brewing.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Full Video of "JFK and the Unspeakable" panel discussion with Jim Douglass, Oliver Stone and Lisa Pease, moderated by Robert Ellsberg
Here is the entire talk, filmed at the Saban Theater in Beverly Hills, California, on November 8, 2010, 50 years to the day after John F. Kennedy was elected President.
I have to say, each and every one of these men was just as nice and genuine and brilliant offstage as they were onstage. It was such a treat to share the stage with them for this event! YouTube limits uploads to 15 minutes, hence the five parts, below.
It was rather horrifying to wake to hear that the Obama administration is considering sending hunter-killer teams into Yemen in hopes of seeking out and killing suspected terrorists.
First, there’s no guarantee that the people the CIA has identified are, in fact, terrorists. There is no court for assessing evidence and no appeal process if mistakes are made. If some CIA analyst decides someone is a terrorist, that’s it. That’s horrific to me, as a lover of truth and justice.
Second, imagine telling your children that if they have a disagreement with another child at school, they shouldn’t talk, they shouldn’t appeal to higher authorities, they should just kill them. That’s essentially what the United States is doing and teaching by these actions. Shame.
Third, I’ve been reading a lot about President John F. Kennedy’s foreign policy in the last few weeks. He knew that you’d never win a war by firepower alone. If your enemy is hungry, first feed them, then seek common ground. Violence only ever begets more violence.
I talked to someone whose hardcore Republican parents nonetheless talked with great fondness for President Kennedy and felt he was the best president we ever had.
Why? They were immigrants from El Salvador, and remembered how where Reagan had sent guns, Kennedy had sent care packages – caritas – of food to give away to the starving people. That bought more goodwill for America than violence ever did.
His “Alliance for Progress” started as a program to bring economic support to Latin America. The perversion of that program to include police and military training came about after Kennedy’s death. (You can read Kennedy’s original vision for the program, as outlined in this speech, given in the first 100 days of his administration.)
In Indonesia, Kennedy created a plan of economic stimulus and support, which was reversed after his assassination.
Kennedy was so certain that the way to a better future came from educating and feeding people, rather than killing them, that he created the Peace Corps with the goal of doing just that.
Yemen is so poor its capital city may run out of water within a decade. A third of its population is malnourished. I can’t think of anything more likely to breed terrorism than a population that has no choice but to kill to survive.
That kind of terrorism I understand. I certainly don’t condone it, but I understand that terrorism does not feel like a choice when people are that desperate.
Where Kennedy would have sent food and water, the Obama administration is considering sending “hunter-killer” teams. And the fact that the media can talk so openly about this shows how far we’ve fallen from Kennedy’s vision of America as a benevolent leader. Where is the outrage?
And does it even make sense that anyone in Yemen would be trying to attack the United States?
Yemen is already in conflict with its neighbor, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is rich, so it would at least make sense that Yemenese terrorists would target their rich neighbor in the hope of winning concessions.
It makes little sense that they would instead take whatever tiny resources they could scrape together in an effort to target the U.S. half a world away. [Indeed, the director of Yemenia Airways has denied that any UPS cargo plane or packages had left Yemen in the 48 hours prior to the alleged bomb shipment.]
I suspect this latest counter-terrorism operation isn’t about trying to end terrorism, which has supplanted “anticommunism” as the excuse du jour for enacting whatever policies Washington wants overseas. As with anticommunism, counter-terrorism is the excuse used for going after other countries’ resources.
When the CIA helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, the explanation at the time was that he was suspected of being a communist, but the CIA’s official history gives the first reason as Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil industry.
When the CIA then overthrew Guatemala’s democratically elected leader Jacobo Arbenz, another non-communist, it was to reclaim nationalized farmlands for American businesses and to show Latin America that further nationalizations would not be tolerated.
In 1990, after Saddam Hussein got an apparent “green light” from President George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to invade Kuwait, the Iraqi invasion became an excuse to put U.S. troops permanently in the oil-rich region.
But President George W. Bush’s “war on terror” changed everything. While the United States used to do its empire building covertly, now it’s just a bald imperialist power, trying to establish military bases in other countries all over the world and not surprisingly upsetting many of the locals.
Imagine if China established a military base on American soil. Would Americans become sudden fans of the Chinese? Or would we be angry, fearing our nation had been in part taken over by a foreign power we never invited in? How is it that Americans do not understand that nearly every “victory” abroad won with guns ensures a long-term loss for America?
The Democratic Party’s severe losses on Tuesday were in part a reflection of President Obama’s failure to follow the moral vision President Kennedy once outlined. He showed Americans how to lead with our hearts and thus how to win the hearts of people from other nations.
Unfortunately, those who feel that the only way to lead is with guns now run the show.
- - - -
If you like this article and the others I and Robert Parry and Danny Schecter and Bill Moyers and others over at Consortium News have written, please contribute money to that site. They're doing a matching grant right now - so your $25 dollars is the equivalent of $50, for example. http://www.consortiumnews.com.
Cass Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule, Obama, and Conspiracy Theories
I'll have more to say about this over time - but an email touting Obama's role in suppressing conspiracy theories is going around. While I do not have enough evidence to know if Obama knew or agreed with the opinions in the paper referenced below, it's certainly cause for question and concern.
Glenn Greenwald sums it up nicely here:
It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power: namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption.
Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation? And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government? The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and government resources: namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.
It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.
Read the whole thing at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/.
Then read my letter to Adrian Vermeule below, re this paper, which he co-authored with Sunstein.
Dear Professor Vermeule:
I’m reading the paper you and Cass Sunstein wrote about Conspiracy Theories (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084585), and had a few questions I hope you can answer.
1. Who wrote which parts? Did one of you write most of it and if so, who was that?
2. Why do you say “as a general rule, true accounts [of conspiracies] should not be undermined.” Which true accounts should be undermined, and under which circumstances?
3. If we say “all Asian people” do something, aren’t we being racist? When you generalize about conspiracy theorists as if they are a homogenous set of people (and trust me, that’s far from the truth), aren’t you being, shall we say, labelist? Assigning characteristics of some individuals to an entire group, without justification?
4. Which statement would you agree with more, and why?
a. All conspiracy theories should be dismissed at first glance.
b. All conspiracy theories should be investigated, and evaluated on the evidence.
5. There was a time when the Watergate affair was characterized as a “third-rate burglary.” Would the public have been better served by not pursuing what really happened?
6. If a conspiracy theory becomes consistently predictive, does that make it valuable? Isn’t that how we judge scientific theories, by their consistently predictive value?
7. Did you ever consider the possibility that it is not a lack of information, but rather a supply of information, that gives birth to some conspiracy theories? That conspiracy theory is sometimes simply pattern recognition?
8. There was a time when the notion of an arms-for-hostages deal, i.e., Iran-Contra, was considered a crazy conspiracy theory, until, of course, it was proven to be true. Some people had the information before others, and were denigrated as conspiracy theorists. Should we then acknowledge that some conspiracy theorists can be very good researchers?
9. If the CIA really did kill Kennedy, isn’t that worth investigating? As someone who knows for fact that the CIA lied about what they knew about Oswald, because I have the records from the CIA to prove it, isn’t it worth pursuing WHY they lied about Oswald? Isn’t that an act of patriotism, not paranoia?
11. How can you say that we can’t keep secrets in this “open society” when CIA people know they lose their job, their pension, and can be sent to jail for revealing them?
For the record, I too am frustrated with how gullible people are, and how quickly they can jump to unsupported conclusions. Why do some people refuse to believe a conspiracy happened, even when the evidence is there (e.g., Holocaust deniers)?
Some conspiracy theorists are indeed too gullible, are not skilled in the evaluation of evidence, and see shadows where none exist. But to group all conspiracy theorists into this bucket is to miss the fact that there are serious people -- professors, lawyers, judges, presidents -- who believe these theories precisely because of the evidence, not in spite of it.
As someone who has spent nearly twenty years studying the actual conspiracies of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Smedley Butler’s account of the plot to overthrow FDR, and in great detail, the CIA’s full history (mind control, infiltration and manipulation of the media, using academics to promote practices favorable to the agency, etc., bugging schemes, exotic weaponry, coups and assassinations and yes, the CIA’s curious obfuscations regarding its potential role in the assassination of President Kennedy), it seems that an honest investigation of conspiracy theories is the only way to dispel false conspiracy theories. Dismissing them out of hand without a proper hearing is anti-intellectual and simply compounds the problem.
Opening records, providing access to witnesses, conducting an honest inquiry -- isn’t that the simple way to either prove or disprove conspiracy theories? The trick is to find an honest group to hold an honest investigation. I’ve known very few truly honest people in my life. This will forever be a challenging task, especially when money and power are at stake.
Conspiracy theories aren’t the problem; they’re the symptom. And they’re not the symptom of “mental illness, such as paranoia or narcissism” that you suggest. They are the symptom of a government that lies to the people, often through the mainstream media. Most people aren’t stupid. And you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
We know the CIA lied about what they knew about Oswald to other agencies of the government just a month before the assassination because we have two communications drafted within hours of each other, by the same people, with one describing Oswald as older, fat and balding, and one describing him accurately. That’s not an accident, because the inaccurate description was escalated to nearly the Deputy Director’s level for approval, indicating, as one of the signees said on the record, sensitive information that was closely held and revealed only on a “need to know” basis. Those were the CIA officer’s words, not some screenwriter’s.
Does that prove the CIA killed Kennedy? Of course not. But it proves people are not crazy to suspect such. And it proves people who automatically discount that either haven’t seen the CIA’s own records to this effect for themselves, and understood them, or that they are suffering from, to borrow your words, a “crippled epistemology.”
What we really need is conspiracy literacy. People need to be taught how to evaluate evidence. There’s a hierarchy of evidence. For example, most people should believe sworn testimony over unsworn testimony, for example, if there’s a very real chance the person not only could but would be prosecuted for perjury. And to demonstrate why that caveat is needed, since there was no chance Richard Helms was going to be prosecuted for perjury when he lied about the CIA’s role in overthrowing Allende in Chile, he lied in his testimony. And while he was initially charged, it was dismissed, despite his outright admission of lying -- calling it a “badge of honor.” Is it any wonder people imagine hidden conspiracies when they see this kind of behavior flaunted openly, instead of punished?
What we really don’t need is what you suggested: “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.
Been there, done that. It was called COINTELPRO when the FBI did it and Operation Chaos when the CIA did it. And neither worked. Which leads to my final question:
13. Why would you suggest the conspiratorial infiltration of groups by government operatives as a means to combat conspiracy theory? Can you appreciate the irony there?
I’m cc’ing this to many people, and will post this publicly. I will do the same with any response you provide.
Dick Russell’s second book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, is an important contribution to the subject's literature. Russell intertwines some of his previously published articles with chapters of never-before-published information, offering updated perspectives on previous revelations and adding new information to the case.
Russell’s combination of talents is rare in the research community: he brings a reporter’s process, a novelist’s flair, and a researcher’s deep curiosity to the case. The result is an eminently readable volume. It’s far easier to tackle this series of articles than his 800+ page previous volume, The Man Who Knew Too Much, which Russell notes his friends have jokingly called The Book That GrewToo Much.
I must thank Lachy Hulme, an Australian friend of Russell’s, for prompting Russell to resurface his previous articles originally published in The Village Voice, Harpers Weekly, Argosy Magazine, New Times, High Times, and other outlets. In retrospect, these pieces were remarkably insightful. For example, at a time when some of the leading voices in the community were desperately trying to pull the case away from the milieu New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison first discovered, the nexus between the intelligence community, the anti-Castro Cubans, and the CIA’s Mob associates, Russell kept the focus on this crowd and added to the evidence with interviews of some of the case's most colorful characters.
Jim Garrison gets a fairer treatment here than in much of the literature, a welcome relief from the Garrison bashing most critics feel compelled to perpetrate. Indeed, much of what we have learned since the HSCA has served to bolster Garrison’s position. The title of Russell’s book is itself a nod to Garrison’s earlier account of his own investigation into the case, On the Trail of the Assassins.
Russell shows his obvious fascination with intelligence agents, the “spooks” who inhabit that netherworld between observable reality and the covert world we civilians rarely encounter, who perform operations most Americans know nothing about, sometimes to their later chagrin. A character who called himself by the pseudonym “Captain Sam” quite aptly describes why pursuing the truth through the people closest to the crime can be a frustrating endeavor:
“[T]here’s one thing you should know from the start. Half of what I’ll tell you might be the truth, and the other half bullshit. But all of it is what I was told. That’s part of the game in the intelligence business. You confuse your own operatives with false information; maybe nobody knows the full truth about a particular assignment.”
And therein lies the rub of investigating covert operations. Even those who want to help can unintentionally mislead, despite the best of intentions. And then there are the others, who mislead on purpose. Russell appears to have walked a fine line between letting the spooks have their say without giving weight to statements that contradict provable facts about the case.
Ironically, I was just about to write up, for a presentation I was preparing, the story of Luis Castillo, who appeared to be a CIA asset hypnoprogrammed to assassinate a foreign leader and then kill himself afterwards. He was arrested in advance of his assignment by authorities, and his weapons were confiscated. Nonetheless, at the appointed time, he mimed shooting a gun at someone else, from within his prison walls, and then mimed killing himself. I had just pulled out the Turner/Christian book on the Robert Kennedy assassination, which contained a brief discussion of Castillo, when Russell’s book arrived in my mail. I had no idea that Russell, along with Jeff Cohen, the founder of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), had done extensive research on the Castillo case, and had talked to Victor Arcega, the man who was able to uncover, through hypnosis, some of Castillo’s hypnotic programming. Russell’s article on Castillo is, I believe, a must read, not the least for how Dr. Herbert Spiegel helped spike a book deal on Castillo. There’s a reason such stories rarely reach the public, and it’s not always because the story isn’t true. It’s because it isn’t provably true, which is an unfortunately high standard. I’m grateful that Russell gives us the data and lets us make up our own minds.
One of the most interesting throughlines across the old and new articles is the focus on the CIA’s mind control programs and possible connections between those programs and certain participants in the JFK assassination story. While I’ve never believed Oswald was under hypnosis at the time of the Kennedy assassination, the topic is endlessly fascinating, and, I believe, very important to understand the Robert Kennedy assassination, which is touched on in passing in this volume. I’m not at all convinced that Luis Castillo, for example, was in Dealey Plaza, as some of his memories suggest. But it seems obvious to me he was used in a CIA program involving an assassination plot against the leader of another country, albeit (and thankfully) an unsuccessful one.
One of my favorite articles in the book was “The Media, the CIA, and the Cover-Up.” Russell recounts key points in the media history of the case, and shows the direct connections between key stories in the cover-up and the CIA assets behind those stories. I’ve longed to read just such an article for years. It was a pleasure to find the people behind the media cover-up and their connections to the Agency so clearly laid out here.
The book includes some fascinating interviews. Russell recounts a long interview with Senator Richard Schweiker (R-Pa.), who became increasingly concerned by the “fingerprints of intelligence” he found all over Lee Harvey Oswald during his work with the Church Committee.
Richard Sprague, who briefly headed the House Select Committee on Assassinations before the CIA’s media assets started a drumbeat for his removal, noted in his interview with Russell that he had become more interested in the media’s coverage of the case than the facts of the assassination itself, a sentiment I share. To me, one of the points of studying the history of the Kennedy assassination is to explore how someone gets away with such a crime, how the crime can be effectively covered up for years, and how the cover-up, in the end, when unraveled, presents some of the best evidence of conspiracy itself.
Speaking of cover-ups, there's an interesting little story in here regarding a favorite subject of mine, Gordon Novel. Most people who know Gordon know he can lie with the best of them. But few understand why he lies about this case. Russell shows no particular curiosity along those lines, which is a shame, since he has such a provocative tidbit to share that, with some additional context, could become a lot more interesting.
One of my favorite chapters had to do with Russell’s hilarious, amateurish trip to KGB headquarters in Moscow, accompanied by an associate who—well, you just have to read his account. I could see the ending coming a mile away, and was bemused that Russell did not, at the time.
This book will appeal to a broad cross-section of readers. People with only a casual interest in the JFK case will find much to ponder here. Researchers who have been at this for years will learn some startling new information throughout, and especially at the end of the book in Russell’s dynamite interview of Doug Horne, the ARRB's key medical evidence researcher. Those who enjoy spook tales will laugh at the various characters Russell interacts with throughout the 320-page volume. And because the book is a series of self-contained chapters and articles, it's easy to reach "closure" every few pages. I'm not fond of books that keep me up all night while I search for an appropriate stopping point. The truth about this case is, after all, disturbing enough.
Kennedy didn't say he was a donut! "Ich bin ein Berliner" means just what Kennedy meant - "I am a Berliner"
I love how these CIA-spread myths end up as the gospel truth, when they are nothing of the sort. Even Keith Olbermann fell for this one.
No, Kennedy did not say he was a donut.
He said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." And if you look up Berliner in a German dictionary, you will find that while donut is one meaning, the other meaning, the one Kennedy was obviously saying, is this:
"to be born in Berlin; to be a native Berliner; to be Berlin-born"
I am never surprised to hear the ignorant say Kennedy said this "wrong," when he didn't. But my heart sank when good ol' Keith Olbermann fell for the disinformation. Wow. I guess if a few people say it, it's suddenly true, eh?
Will all of you reading this please help spread the TRUTH about what Kennedy said? No doubt this will come up in the next few days as Obama prepares his own version of such a speech.
By the way - if you've never seen this speech, enjoy.
The Germans knew what he was saying. Here's the transcript of the full speech. It's a good one.
I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.
Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."
I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sic nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.
Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of. the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.
What is true of this city is true of Germany—real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you, as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner!"
This is a slightly modified version of a letter I sent to the author of yet another reviewer of Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was disappointed with your review of Bugliosi’s book “Reclaiming History,” an Orwellian title, at that. As someone who spent over 15 years looking at actual documents – not just other people’s books – on the JFK case, I can assure you Bugliosi’s book is exactly the one-sided treatment he accuses the critics of writing.
I defy any honest person to follow the CIA’s pre-assassination paper trail on Oswald and argue that Oswald was not of high-level, special interest to the CIA. A top CIA official who signed off on one of these documents actually said as much to John Newman, himself a former intelligence analyst as well as a PhD in history and a professor of such. Jane Roman signed off, knowingly, on a cable and a teletype – drafted within a short time of each other. One document described Oswald accurately. The second described Oswald as older, fat and balding. She told Newman, “I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true” when he showed her the document with her signature, and said, “Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on the need-to-know basis.” The document that lied about Oswald went to several agencies of the U.S. Government. The CIA was deliberately concealing Oswald’s identity from other agencies less than a month before the assassination.
Why?
In addition, Oswald provably didn’t fire a rifle that day. His cheek was tested for nitrates and came up negative. False positives were not uncommon. But false negatives were unheard of, until one of the FBI agents managed to create one1. How did he do it? By using a second person, and having them wipe down the gun between shots. Not only would the timing of the shots not have allowed that, but if Oswald had a conspirator, then hello, it was a conspiracy!
Does Bugliosi mention that one of his key sources on Oswald and Marina, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, has confessed to being, as her CIA file describes her, a “witting” asset of the agency? So we’re to take the chief suspect’s word on Oswald’s instability and inappropriateness for agency recruitment? Isn’t that, well, awfully convenient?
I’m sorry to see you take the easy way out, and assume that because Bugliosi is a figure of stature that that makes him more honest than the people like John Newman, David Talbot (founder and Editor-in-Chief of Salon.com), and the numerous other reporters, PhD’s, MDs, JDs and others who have put in the time to learn the sad truth of the conspiracy and the ongoing cover-up.
Unlike Mr. Bugliosi, no one has paid me or any of the other highly qualified researchers in this case a million dollars to do nothing but write a book about this case, or each of us could have easily written a 1600 page book, equally well-documented, making a persuasive case that Oswald was being manipulated like a pawn by the CIA to take the fall for the assassination. But people like me aren’t given that kind of money to make that case. That’s not the end result of Kennedy’s assassination 44 years ago. The end result, as we have recently witnessed, is an increasingly criminal government, a war launched under false pretenses, and a press that is increasingly losing relevance because, unlike 80% of the public, it can’t connect these dots.
Note 1. Cortlandt Cunningham, an FBI special agent, told the Warren Commission that another FBI agent, Mr. Killion, was given two tests. He did not fire a gun on the first test - that was the control. He got only a false positive on his hands and cheek, before he fired anything. Cunningham then described what they did next:
We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions. [Source: Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III p. 494]
So the only way the FBI was able to get a "false negative" was by using a second person, who cleaned the gun and loaded it for the test subject. So either Oswald had a conspirator cleaning and loading his gun, or he was innocent. That's what the FBI tests showed.
I know, I know. Some of you are oh so gently reminding me I promised to write about E. Howard Hunt. And I will. At a future break in my writing schedule, but that may not come very soon. But this should tide you over. I don't endorse this as the truth, but it's provocative and interesting and worthy of discussion, because if it's not true, then determining who lied to whom and why is an interesting and possibly fruitful investigation. Read E. Howard Hunt's purported confession re CIA involvement in the JFK assassination, per his son, in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine.
I will say this. I've never found the LBJ thesis credible. I just don't believe LBJ would go to all the trouble to have Kennedy killed in his mad lust for power, and then bow out of his second term when all he had to do was kill another Kennedy, something that ultimately happened without his efforts. Never made sense. It makes more sense that whoever killed John killed Bobby to keep the coverup going. THAT makes sense.
More on these topics and more another time. I know, I'm a tease at times. But a girl's got to eat, and do laundry, and all those other mundane tasks that make up our existence. But when I'm caught up and fired up, you know I'll be spouting off again. Stay tuned.
