[From the diaries by susanhu. Will we ever get this story? Will we ever get the withheld government documents]
I wrote this in response to Max Holland’s awful piece about last fall’s JFK conference in DC, which I also attended and wrote up at Robert Parry’s site. Sometimes I write a letter to the editor hoping to get published. Sometimes I write hoping to actually inform someone of something. The latter was my motivation in this particular case. Here it is. I know those of you who share my passion for Real History will agree with the sentiment at the end. (I’ve also added a few links for the curious.)
Dear Editors,
I was shocked that you allowed Max Holland to comment on the recent JFK Conference. He’s already shown his lack of journalistic integrity on the subject. In the current piece, he made the bald-faced lie that “In point of fact, 99.99 percent of the HSCA’s report improved upon or underscored the accuracy of the Warren Report’s key findings.” It did nothing of the sort, as those of us in the research community who have actually READ the HSCA’s report know very well. Is there no fact checker at The Nation?
When you rightly avoided publishing his article espousing the notion that the KGB caused Americans to suspect CIA involvement in the JFK case, he took it to the CIA, which published it happily, since it exculpated them of any involvement in the Kennedy assassination. But that’s not necessarily a new relationship. Holland got his early start with the Voice of America, a well-known outlet for the CIA’s propaganda during the Cold War.
[continued below]
In fact, that was the pattern at the conference, which I also attended. While most leading researchers on the case believe elements of the CIA were directly involved, those who take the opposite view, like Holland, invariably end up having a cozy relationship with the chief suspect.
It should embarrass you to learn that Holland omitted mention of the most interesting and heated exchange at the conference. Two speakers rose to debate the acoustic evidence on which the HSCA based its conclusion of “probable conspiracy.” The first, Richard Garwin, said the sound evidence was off by a second, and therefore proved nothing. The second, Don Thomas, said that Garwin was using a different copy of the audio tape, proven by the number on the tape, and that the discrepancy was attributed to its being a copy. Thomas then showed how the sound evidence matched perfectly with all the extant video evidence. It was a stunning refutation of Garwin’s weak defense of the non-conspiracy view.
Would it surprise you to learn that Garwin was, as he admitted publicly when challenged, a CIA man? As a conference participant, I found that confession stunning. As a “journalist”, Max Holland didn’t even find that worthy of mention.
Is Max Holland a CIA asset at The Nation? If he is, that’s a tragedy for the nation and The Nation. If he isn’t, he’s simply a guy who, for whatever private reason, is more comfortable repeating the assertions of others than uncovering the truth. And his “99.99%” statement shows he’s willing to lie to do so. So it hardly matters if he’s CIA or not. Whatever he is, he sure doesn’t belong at The Nation.
We continue to learn every day how official lies bring heinous tragedy upon the innocent. His perversions of history do no less damage. We can’t learn the lessons of history when he presents a false version of it.
Lisa Pease
.
Berlepsch’s Six-wired Bird of Paradise :: A ‘Lost World’
Halliburton, Bechtel and now, Freeport McMoRan ◊ by Real History Lisa
Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 10:50:01 PM PST
You know Halliburton. You’ve probably heard of Bechtel. But until today, I’ll bet most of you had never heard of Freeport McMoRan, formerly Freeport Sulphur.
… a select few in the military profit wildly, even as the mining operation is leaching acid into the groundwater serving the island containing the nations of West Papua and Papua New Guinea
Political activists put a lot of time into learning about Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney. But we should look a little further to see whom these people really serve. Freeport is a much bigger player in international politics than most people know. Board members have included Henry Kissinger and Admiral Arleigh Burke, as well as several prominent members of the Rockefeller clan.
[Some links added are mine – Oui]
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Thanks, Oui. And thanks for keeping Papua’s story in the public eye!
.
vs. GW Bush – Gannon & JFK SBVT 2004 ◊ by creve coeur @dKos
Hoover’s memo, which was written to the director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, was buried among the 98,755 pages of FBI documents released to the public in 1977 and 1978 as a result of the Freedom of Information Act suits. It was written to summarize the briefings given to Bush and Capt. William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency by the FBI’s W.T. Forsyth on November 23, the day after the assassination, when Lee Harvey Oswald was still alive to be interrogated about his connections to Cuban exiles and the CIA.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Lisa, for those of us that are not much more familiar with JFK conspiracy theories than the Oliver Stone movie, could you give a brief explanation for the following sentence?
“While most leading researchers on the case believe elements of the CIA were directly involved…”
Sure. At a recent conference in DC, the conference opened with that statement. Jim Lesar, John Newman (historian and former military intelligence analyst), Jeff Morley of the Washington Post, David Talbot of Salon, the former HSCA Deputy Chief Counsel (who was also for a while the Mayor of Beverly Hills) Bob Tanenbaum, attorneys Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway, and former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi all believe that certain CIA people seem to definitely have been involved. I says “the CIA did it” as shorthand, but of course the truth is more complicated than that. But high level people – not just rogue operators – are directly implicated by the files released since Stone’s film JFK spawned the JFK Act, aimed at declassifying the Warren Commission and HSCA files, as well as files from other sources.
today, this is a shameful waste of time.
The Warren Commission got it right – George Bush is getting it all wrong.
Ed, if you’ll write a diary on a story you find important, i’ll gladly front-page it.
I’ve been waiting to post a story on the former CIA guy … but we try to give each story an hour at the top.
Also: This story has particulat historical importance to what’s going on now … the cover-ups, the lies.
And, Real History Lisa is a longtime friend of mine, and I always appreciate her writing. Have you been to her site? I think BooMan said he spent hours there reading her articles…. agree or not, she’s done an enormous amount of research. And she’s co-published a very good book on the assassinations.
for you and your judgement. In this case I don’t agree with you. What’s going on now involves real cover-ups and real lies. If we start equating them to the flimsy, convoluted JFK assassination conspiracies we weaken our case considerably.
I’m sorry if I gave offense.
That’s a very good point, Ed. And I respect your judgment too … I’ll let Lisa Pease weigh in on the possibility that we could weaken our case. Sure, the pundits like Buchanan et al. would make fun of an Oliver Stone-like conspiracy theory, but I think polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of the American people do not believe the Warren Commission, and think there was a conspiracy. Lisa P. or Jerry (jpol) would have that poll data, probably.
And I think that the JFK cover-up — along with Watergate — was pivotal in making the American public more skeptical. It took them almost three years to figure out that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were bogus, but they did get it.
“Oliver Stone conspiracy theory?”
Jim Garrison’s ideas have been proven right over the years, too. The Warren Report is the conspiracy theory par excellence.
But the the closest to the plausible ‘truth’ is found in the fictional account by Don DeLillo, in his book “Libra.” He tells the story from the point of view of Lee Harvey Oswald using biographical facts. There is no way Oswald could have planned the assassination himself. He truly was a “patsy” as he said.
Just to be clear: I was talking about what the ‘wingers would say, not what I think.
And, I found Stone’s movie, “JFK,” superb…. and I love to watch it any time it’s on. (I should have posted it in Boo’s political movies thread.)
The JFK case is the biggest over-up of all. Instead of platitudes why don’t you back up your absurd assertions that the Warren Commission got it right. I’d be delighted to debate the matter with you.
Susan should feel no need to defend your ignorance on this case. Care to debate any of the facts? Or is all you know what you read in Gerald Posner’s weak and factually inaccurate book Case Closed?
Surely you jest. I try to be polite, but any one who says the Warren Report got it right just doesn’t know the case and has it wrong.
Check out John McAdams’ excellent peeling away of the layers of bunkum which have fooled so many over the years.
Don’t pass the buck. I’ve been studying the JFK case and writing about it since 1967. If you think the Warren Report is right tell us why. Posting a link to a professional apologist is just a copout.
Professor McAdams. It appears that you label him an “apologist” and say that I’m a copout because you cannot refute his logic.
He is an apologist, and I stand ready and willing to address any specific defense of the Warren Report you care to present. Surely you can do better than your pathetic link. Perhaps not.
“copout”, “pathetic”, when you have no evidence all you seem capable of is personal attack.
When presented with cogent arguments and the facts of the case, you conspiracy buffs are lost. You call Professor McAdams names but do not address his arguments. All you have is the smoke and mirrors of speculation.
I find it intrigueing that you ridicule the fact (and I use that word deliberately) that there was a conspiracy, yet you seem unwilling or unable to back up your own misguided faith in the Warren Report. You have no business questioning the logic of others if you refuse to offer none of your own. Instead you accuse those who challenge you and your mentors of name calling. Of course I understand where you are coming from because there is no way to intelligently or honestly defend the Warren Report. I don’t blame you for offering useless links in place of rational discourse.
because it scares the bejeezus out of you. You have no answers so you run away from it.
As for my “mentors” (what silly condescension), I need no mentors, the Warren Report is my guide and you have done it no damage whatsoever.
Unlike you I am prepared to discuss the facts. You have yet to offer a single argument in defense of your faith in the Warren Report. If it is condescension to point that out, so be it.
I might remind you, by the way, that Lisa’s diary was not even about the Warren Report. It was about the dishonest approach another of its apopogists, Max Holland, uses to distract and mislead readers of The Nation. If you are so hell-bent on defending the Warren Report while offering no rationale in support of it why not write your own diary instead of hijacking Lisa’s. I really do not intend to respond to any more of your posts unless you stop dodging the issue and offer up some rationale for why we should believe the Warren Report. If you’ve studied the evidence that shouldn’t be such a daunting challenge, and if you haven’t how dare you question the scholarship of those that have.
for you to use.
These are the credentials of a scholar:
I’ve already wasted too much time on this, the last word is all yours.
That means nothing, as Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, James Fetzer and many other professors at universities say that there WAS a conspiracy. Argument from authority is a classic propaganda technique. Authority is meaningless because you can people in all professions willing to shill for the government to get ahead.
McAdams is also one of the most right-wing people you will ever meet. He’s a huge supporter of President Bush. Are you? If not, do you concede he cannot possibly be right about everything?
McAdams long ago admitted working for the ICPSR, an child organization of the Institute for Social Research, which used to be called the Survey Research Center, housed at the University of Michigan. As Christopher Simpson wrote in his book “Science of Coercion” that the institute was virtually an outpost of the federal government, owing its survival to contracts with government agencies, including propaganda agencies. So it surprises me not at all that he is willing to shill re the JFK case.
Did you know he once accused a respected doctor in the research community of being a drug user, with absolutly no evidence? The good doctor ran right out to get an instant blood test to prove how ridiculous that was.
Some respected authority. He’s the laughing stock of the cognescenti in the research community.
I’ve rated you a troll because in this entire set of comments, you’ve done nothing but promote a disinformationist, John McAdams, a man who admittedly lied about who he was to a journalist, who has repeatedly distorted and misrepresented the evidence on this case. You are trying to provoke a fight here with Jerry. Troll isthe appropriate rating given the lack of any intelligent contribution to this thread, and your actions.
You and jpol have a real problem – you get overwrought when anyone dares disagree with you. I’ll say it again and again, Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. All the troll-rating in the world won’t change that fact.
I don’t know Mr. McAdams and don’t care about his politics. The two of you are afraid of his arguments because they deal with facts and not speculation.
Now, excuse me, gotta go to the mailbox – I think my CIA paycheck came today.
You don’t know what’s fact or not because you have only read McAdams’ version of the events. How do I know that? Because even the most casual perusal of the facts, many of which are available on my site, which Jerry gave you a link to, show that McAdams is deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Wallow away in your ignorance. But to assert as fact what you don’t even know makes you really look ridiculous.
McAdams lied about his own identity at a conference on the assassination. He attended one as “Paul Nolan” and gave an interview to a reporter under that name, in which he claimed a false profession. This liar is the one you respect on this case? Wow. You need to get better role models. Look at the actual files, not McAdams’s misrepresentations of such.
McAdams has lied more than once about this case, and I’ve exposed him. He also used to work for a CIA-sponsored entity. Coincidence? Or is there something more when all the people who say there was no conspiracy end up having CIA connections or being persuaded by those who do?
the Warren Commission Report. He said to Earl Warren, “You are not your father’s son, Earl.”
Ed, it doesn’t even matter which side is right. This is an important discussion. Much of what has happened since in our nation–and is happening–is flavored by that event. How we see it affects our views of what is happening in the world today.
I can’t help but think of those people who believe that they are rational decision-makers, unaffected by the past, taking only relevant current information into account. To them, the past is a waste of time.
But they are wrong.
All of our decisions, personal and national, are based on our visions of the past.
The only way we can intelligently make the decisions required today is by constantly examining our assumptions about the past.
I certainly do not consider the past a waste of time. I have a great love of history and believe it informs and colors our every step. What I object to is allowing fantasy and speculation to take the place of reality.
But you, then, become the arbiter of what is “fantasy” and what is “real.” And that is not sufficient, not for you and not for me. Certainly not for our nation.
Others have views different from yours, and those views, whether fantasy or not, influence our world. For that reason (putting all else aside) they have to be considered seriously.
And then, they might be right–all evidence to the contrary–“rational” explanations notwithstanding.
I’ve been reading about Cotton Mather and the controversy surrounding smallpox inoculation in the early 18th century. Mather was derided for advocating something that had no “scientific” basis.
Yet he is the one who eventually was proven right.
But Mather had science and evidence on his side. As did Morton and Lister and many others.
Actually, Mather did not. He had belief.
The scientific evidence came later.
The FBI agents at the autopsy reported the doctors’ distress at the lack of exit for the bullet that entered the back. If the back wound didn’t go through, that’s the simplest, most incontrovertible evidence of conspiracy there is. The FBI agents were so puzzled by the fact that the wound did not exit, yet no bullet was present, that they speculated that perhaps ice bullets had be used. That’s a fact. If you want to talk facts, that’s one thing. But you want to assert authority with no basis whatsoever. In short, you are breaking the single rule here on Booman, which is, “Don’t be a prick.”
Ed, i think this whole thread was a shame, because no one at any time put forward the central contentions.
The Warren Commission identified Lee Harvey Oswald as a shooter, and the only shooter, and said he acted alone, not at the instruction of some other agency.
The HSCA in the late 1970’s declared that based on the acoustical evidence there were more than 3 shots and that one of them came from another direction. Based on that evidence the HSCA concluded there had been a conspiracy. But they could not identify any other suspects, or agencies.
The man that was used by the CIA as the liason to the HSCA investigatory team (i.e. the guy responsible for facilitating document searches) turned out to be the guy responsible for running the anti-Castro Cuban operations in Florida and New Orleans. This was never disclosed to the investigators. And the lead investigator in the HSCA now suspects foul play.
So, when we talk about whether the Warren Commission stands up as a the final word, we need to take these things into account.
.
“It is inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government” — James Angleton
###
What’s your view?
In the 1990s, researchers started to realize that there was a fourth possible explanation. Zapruder’s film might also be a part of the lies and cover-up that agencies of the U.S. Government had weaved around the JFK assassination!
Scientists examined the Zapruder film. They found that, while most of it looks completely genuine, some of the images are impossible. They violate the laws of physics. They could not have come from Zapruder’s home movie camera.
Zapruder’s film is a very good forgery. It is almost perfect. Some mistakes took almost 40 years to find.
JFK assassination film hoax
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
And here some info to back up what I am saying:
As for the Dictabelt recordings, they are highly contentious, but there is good reason to believe that the CIA has been coordinating a campaign to debunk the dictabelt studies ever since 1978.
recordings are contentious indeed. As I remember it, the HSCA was about to reaffirm the findings of the Warren Commission when, literally on the last day, this dictabelt evidence suddenly appeared. I could be wrong, but that’s how I remember it.
I don’t know what’s in those CIA files, but I do know that all the real physical evidence we know about points to Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. I’m open to alternate scenarios but only if supported by facts.
Another thing that, in my mind, argues against conspiracy is the old saying that three men can keep a secret, as long as two of them are dead. It is impossible for me to believe that so many people could be silent for over 40 years about one of the most important crimes in the history of the world.
they hid the fact that Johannides was the anti-Castro handler for 20 years. I fail to see how your suspicions back up your point.
The CIA couldn’t do a damn thing if more than 2 people couldn’t keep a secret.
You are wrong Ed. What showed up at the last minute was the Bronson film which seems to show three people moving about in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository shortly before the assassination. The HSCA team of photo experts examined the film and agreed this is what it appeared to show and suggested that the FBI subject the film to scientific enhancement. That was never done.
It so happens that most of the staff of the HSCA believed there had been a conspiracy. Its second chief counsel, Robert Blakey, did not, and under his direction the report was indeed going to come down on the side of a lone assassin.
The committee was alerted to the existence of a police dictabelt tape that might have recorded the sound of the shots and they were reminded that modern acoustics science not available in the 60’s might be capable of enhancing the tape and identifying if there were gunshots recorded on it and where they came from. Blakey siezed on this, thinking it would buttress his lone assassin beliefs. The tape was analyzed by a prestigious team of scientists at Bolt, Berenek and Newman. They identified at least five shots coming from at least two directions. The last two were fired almost simultaneously (less than 1/2 second apart), where the alleged assassination rifle required 2.3 seconds to get off two shots. The first two shots were fired about a second apart, also too close together for the Mannlicher-Carcano. I was covering the HSCA for New Times Magazine, and I was actually the first to break this story. The original analysis was validated by a second team of experts at Queens College. Staffers at the HSCA told me the accoustics test results had been dubbed “Blakey’s problem” by HSCA staffers because it gave Blakey no alternative but to agree that there were at least two gunmen. He still tried to have his cake and eat it too by claiming that all the shots that hit came from Oswald’s gun which is patently absurd. He also rubber-stamped the discredited single-bullet theory. There was even the suggestion that there might just have been two “lone nuts.”
By the way, Oswald claimed to have been in the second floor lunchroom during the assassination, and there is a mountain of evidence, including eyewitnesses who saw and talked with him there, to support his claim.
to me, the significant thing is that Blakey has recanted everything he has said about the assassination prior to discovering the true identity of Johannides.
I mean, honestly, what could be more incriminating than putting the prime suspect (even though no one knew the identity of the prime suspect) in charge of the CIA files?
But Blakey still fails to mention that the accoustics tests validated five shots, not four. Originally they pretty much positively identified four with a high probablility of a fifth. The Queens college group re-did the calculations and elevated the fifth shot based on something like a 95% probability that is was a real shot. Blakey contends that it does not matter if there were four or five because either one proves a conspiracy, but it does matter. The fifth shot pretty much proves JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets fired way too close together to have come from Oswald’s rifle. Blakey simply does not want to let go of his beloved “single-bullet theory” nor of the notion that only Oswald wounded any one that day.
“single bullet theory” been discredited?
If Isaac Newton were brought back to life and shown the path that bullet took, he’d say “Yeah, so what’s your point” – or whatever the equivalent would be in the English of the 1700’s. It followed all the laws of the physical universe.
That being said, I’ve got to admit that of the smorgasbord of nutty conspiracy theories, Blakey’s was perhaps the nuttiest – one phantom shooter who never hit anything, was never seen, and left no trace of his ever being there.
In every universe except McAdams’!
Geez, you really need to get around, Ed.
The back wound didn’t penetrate. Therefore the single bullet theory doesn’t work. McAdams tries to explain that away – oh, they didn’t try hard enough to find the track through the body. That’s baloney. The doctors tried so hard the FBI was speculating about the use of ice bullets.
What WOULD you consider evidence of conspiracy? What would it take, Ed? If you have no answer, then your bias is present for all to see.
It’s course is described in detail in the autopsy. The single bullet works absolutely flawlessly. No ice bullets needed. Enters high in the back and exits low in the throat. But I’m wasting my time, aren’t I? You don’t want to hear facts.
You think I need to get around? You guys are the ones obsessed with this.
Oswald acting alone. Get out your troll-rating finger.
Show me any evidence that the wound penetrated. That’s what it’s called the Single Bullet THEORY. Even McAdams can’t assert that as fact. And it doesn’t work. Never has, never will. The wound did not go through. The autopsy report is part of the coverup, but it is not faithful to the facts. That’s why the doctor had to burn his notes.
Only subscribers can read that Max Holland article at this point. Lucky me, I only read the free ones.
Thanks for the heads up – I will ignore Max Holland’s articles in the future.
I’m probably going to regret bringing this up, but reading this question just jogged a memory that Mike Ruppert swears David Corn (Washington ed., The Nation) is a CIA asset. Ruppert’s the kind of guy you either find compelling or just bonkers, but it would kind of explain how a dude like Holland could end up with this JFK gig.
Bah.
It occurs to me that no one has linked to Lisa’s excellent site. It offers far better and far more objective reading than the McAdams link Ed J posted. There is also an excellent link exposing the CIA’s obsession with criticism of the Warren Report and its very real efforts to use the media to combat the critics. I especially like this line from the declassified CIA document:
“To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”