Mark Lane, Early Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theorist, Dies at 89

[Octafish]

Source: The New York Times

Mark Lane, the defense lawyer, social activist and author who concluded in a blockbuster book in the mid-1960s that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy, a thesis supported in part by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, died on Tuesday at his home in Charlottesville, Va. He was 89.

SNIP...

The Kennedy assassination, one of the manifest turning points of the 20th century, was the pivotal moment in Mr. Lane’s life and career. He would go on to raise the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. five years later, but it was his Kennedy inquiry that made his name.

Before the president’s murder on Nov. 22, 1963, Mr. Lane was a minor figure in New York’s legal and political circles. He had organized rent strikes, opposed bomb shelter programs, joined the Freedom Riders, took on civil rights cases and was active in the New York City Democratic Party. He was elected a State Assemblyman in 1960 and served one term.

After the Kennedy murder, Mr. Lane devoted much of the next three decades to its investigation. Almost immediately he began the Citizens’ Committee of Inquiry, interviewed witnesses, collected evidence and delivered speeches on the assassination in the United States and in Europe, where he befriended Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher, who became an early supporter of Mr. Lane’s efforts.

SNIP...

He published the results of his inquiry in August 1966 in “Rush to Judgment,” his first book, which dominated best-seller lists for two years. With a trial lawyer’s capacity to amass facts and a storyteller’s skill in distilling them into a coherent narrative, he asserted that the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman was incomplete, reckless at times and implausible.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/mark-lane-who-asserted-that-kennedy-was-killed-in-conspiracy-dies-at-89.html

---

Mr. Lane was a friend with John F. Kennedy. He also was a fellow Democrat. I had the honor of hearing him speak in 2013, thanks to encouragement from DU.

[Kip Humphrey]

1. Mark Lane opened our eyes, breaking the myths of democracy and freedom our government was meant to

protect and defend. The illusion gone, the dream vanquished, and the long awakening begun.

[Octafish]

14. He made an outstanding presentation at the Duquesne conference...

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

EXCERPT...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUED...

Please know the transcription above of Mr. Lane’s remarks from Oct. 18, 2013 at Duquesne above is mine. Any errors it may contain are my own.

[hedda_foil]

15. The original paperback edition of Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgement " is still on my bookshelf.

A few years ago, I donated several hundred books to a charity book sale. I kept no more than 5 aged paperbacks. RtJ was one of them. He was the first credible author to pierce the veil of the Warren Commission's spurious report. I envy you the opportunity to see and hear him in person, Octafish.

[MrMickeysMom]

42. Oh, how I WISHED I had taken the extra day to see him at that conference, Octafish...

Though, I've heard him PLENTY of times here - http://blackopradio.com

I missed an the opportunity to also meet you, as I discovered when meeting/talking with another great researcher, Lisa Pease... (BTW, she spoke very highly of YOU!)

We've lost some important professional researchers into the assassination of JFK this year, as John Judge has passed more recently. Yet, there are second and third generations who continue, based on the excellent work so many have done.

About Mark Lane

Mark Lane has been a member of the bar for more than half a century.

He successfully represented the American Indian Movement in the historic Wounded Knee trial.

He defeated E. Howard Hunt and the CIA in a trial in the United States District Court in Florida and William F. Buckley in a trial in the United States District Court in Washington DC. He represented numerous clients in the civil rights movement in the South and in the North.

He was counsel for a plaintiff in a leading case in the United States District Court, Washington, DC establishing the rights of women to bring actions for sexual harassment.

He was a member of the New York State Legislature and was the only public official arrested as a Freedom Rider in Mississippi.

Mark Lane is the author of eleven books in addition to screen plays and plays.

Citizen Lane, his autobiography, was published June 1, 2012 by Lawrence Hill Books, a division of the Chicago Review Press.

Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the murder of JFK, published by Skyhorse Publishing, is his most recent work on the Kennedy Assassination.

All of his books about contemporary legal matters are listed with annotations in this website under Written Works.

Written works here: http://www.marklane.com/writings.htm

[Octafish]

58. Thank you, MrMickeysMom! The People in Pittsburgh are amazing.

The Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the
50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy at Duquesne University changed my life, even if I'm old. To know that there are so many young people who care about Justice and Democracy and how the assassination of President Kennedy half a century ago impacts their lives today gives me real hope for the future of our nation.

Personally, the best part was meeting so many of the authors and researchers whose work I had read over the decades. Their examples -- standing up for the truth no matter who opposed them -- is why Democracy and the ideals as represented in the Constitution and Bill of Rights still stand.

Here's his presentation on C-SPAN, followed by Joan Mellen's presentation:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?315655-1/kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-mark-lane-joan-mellen

PS: I feel the very same way about you! I also appreciate people interested in discovering truth and sharing it democratically. During my "Machine Gun Mouth" rant, I managed to tell Lisa Pease about the unelected warmonger and BFEE scion's "Money trumps peace" utterance. She was very surprised at W's comment and saddened to learn that the US news media had failed, again, in its job as watchdogs for the People.

PPS: The good folks at Duquesne still owe me a DVD. That guy whose dad does that thing said they'd send one. I don't care, really. They -- and the good people at Pittsburgh -- really strengthened my heart for what is ahead.

[CanSocDem]

2. One of my early hero's...

...not only for stating the obvious in regards to the Warren Commission but for always being in the thick of things throughout the 70's.

I sort of lost track of him after his trip to Jonestown and the attempted assassination of the visiting congressman. Or is my memory slippin'...???


.

[Octafish]

17. Yours is a great memory.

The United States of America -- the one Mark Lane and President Kennedy worked for -- depends on it.

An example from DU, where someone on mentioned the Jonestown tragedy as if it were Mark Lane's fault. I told the poster not to mix blame for Jim Jones with hate for Mark Lane.

Mark Lane’s 93-minute talk about the MLK murder and his subsequent legal representation of both James Earl Ray and Grace Walden (the one person who saw the actual gunman immediately after the shooting and who was put into a mental institution for ten years when she would not “sign off” on James Earl Ray) is beyond textbook definitive. Being his collaborator, Donald Freed says many of the exact same words as Mark Lane, but with the overview of a Greek tragedist looking for human archetypes in situations that span thousands of years. Jim Jones’ comments on the Black Panthers, political assassinations, LSD experiments – you name it – are very ahead of their time and insightful, yet also have an idiotic Gomer Pyle humor to them. (His mispronunciation of “hegemony” compared to how Noam Chomsky says the same word speaks volumes.) His endless incorrect allusions to Donald Freed being the screenwriter of The Parallax View (rather than the actual Executive Action) are amusing/confusing/strange. Jones’ double-faced praise and damning of Mark Lane are indicative of the insanity that was to come. Lane is either a saint brought by God to save them or a provocateur/government mole sent to bring their failure and demise.

http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=31948

Amazing to think how different the nation once was. If no one remembers what it was like, when we had leaders with guts and vision -- real Democrats -- we'll never see days like those again when anything was possible: going to the moon, peace on earth, prosperity for all.

[CanSocDem]

23. Assuredly...

...and even as true as, once again, the 'citizens' are on the brink of deciding who will be the face of AmericaINC.

The measure of the power that existed in 1962 is the caricature of democracy that is now being offered under the guise of free and open elections.

That they are such over-the-top stereotypes frightens me as I remember when the people ceded control of their common sense, and allowed the mass media to do their thinking for them. Now they want you to choose between two of their own instead of the peoples choice left standing outside.

It's the political version of the Warren Commission.

.

[CRH]

3. Mark Lane, Thank You for your contribution,

in exposing an important part of the US 'Secret History'.

[Octafish]

18. A Great Democrat

Here's an interview with Coast-to-Coast radio:

The guy is clear as a bell -- and his last book was written Warren Commission style with no index.

Thank you for remembering, CRH.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. The Mafia-CIA-Cubans-FBI finally got him

[Major Nikon]

9. I suspect the real story was he was traveling in a small airplane

[Octafish]

21. Yeah! Like Paul Wellstone and JFK, Jr.

So funny!

[Major Nikon]

22. More like like chemtrails and UFOs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3645998&mesg_id=3649222

[Octafish]

24. No, more like Nixon and Dulles and Bush.

The history is why I never denigrate people with labels, like "Conspiracy Theorist." It is a loaded term, designed to poison the person as a source of information and news.

Here's the treasonous, murderous reality of the "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" of Watergate fame: Richard Milhous Nixon approved hiring a Secret Service man who said he'd 'kill on command' to guard Ted Kennedy. You can hear Nixon and Haldeman discuss it, about 40 minutes into the HBO documentary "Nixon by Nixon." While I had read the part of the transcript available years ago, and wrote about it on DU, almost no one I know has heard anything about it.

Ted Kennedy survived Richard Nixon's Plots

By Don Fulsom

In September 1972, Nixon’s continued political fear, personal loathing, and jealously of Kennedy led him to plant a spy in Kennedy’s Secret Service detail.

The mole Nixon selected for the Kennedy camp was already being groomed. He was a former agent from his Nixon’s vice presidential detail, Robert Newbrand—a man so loyal he once pledged he would do anything—even kill—for Nixon.

The President was most interested in learning about the Sen. Kennedy’s sex life. He wanted, more than anything, stated Haldeman in The Ends of Power, to “catch (Kennedy) in the sack with one of his babes.”

In a recently transcribed tape of a September 8, 1972 talk among the President and aides Bob Haldeman and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon asks whether Secret Service chief James Rowley would appoint Newbrand to head Kennedy’s detail:

Haldeman: He's to assign Newbrand.

President Nixon: Does he understand that he's to do that?

Butterfield: He's effectively already done it. And we have a full force assigned, 40 men.

Haldeman: I told them to put a big detail on him (unclear).

President Nixon: A big detail is correct. One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes. (Laughter obscures mixed voices.)

President Nixon: Right. No, that's really true. He has got to have the same coverage that we give the others, because we're concerned about security and we will not assume the responsibility unless we're with him all the time.

Haldeman: And Amanda Burden (one of Kennedy’s alleged girlfriends) can't be trusted. (Unclear.) You never know what she might do. (Unclear.)

Haldeman then assures the President that Newbrand “will do anything that I tell him to … He really will. And he has come to me twice and absolutely, sincerely said, "With what you've done for me and what the President's done for me, I just want you to know, if you want someone killed, if you want anything else done, any way, any direction …"

President Nixon: The thing that I (unclear) is this: We just might get lucky and catch this son-of-a-bitch and ruin him for '76.

Haldeman: That's right.

President Nixon: He doesn't know what he's really getting into. We're going to cover him, and we are not going to take "no" for an answer. He can't say "no." The Kennedys are arrogant as hell with these Secret Service. He says, "Fine," and (Newbrand) should pick the detail, too.

Toward the end of this conversation, Nixon exclaims that Newbrand’s spying “(is) going to be fun,” and Haldeman responds: “Newbrand will just love it.”

Nixon also had a surveillance tip for Haldeman for his spy-to-be: “I want you to tell Newbrand if you will that (unclear) because he's a Catholic, sort of play it, he was for Jack Kennedy all the time. Play up to Kennedy, that "I'm a great admirer of Jack Kennedy." He's a member of the Holy Name Society. He wears a St. Christopher (unclear).” Haldeman laughs heartily at the President’s curious advice.

Despite the enthusiasm of Nixon and Haldeman, Newbrand apparently never produced anything of great value. When this particular round of Nixon’s spying on Kennedy was uncovered in 1997, The Washington Post quoted Butterfield as saying periodic reports on Kennedy's activities were delivered to Haldeman, but that Butterfield did not think any potentially damaging information was ever dug up.

SOURCE:

http://surftofind.com/tedkennedy

Why does that matter? The Warren Commission, and the nation's mass media, never heard about the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro until the Church Committee in 1975. You'd think that would be a matter of concern to all Americans, especially considering how then-vice president Nixon was head of the "White House Action Team" that contacted the Mafia for murder.

This is the sort of information citizens of a democracy shouldn't have to search ConsortiumNews or CounterPunch to learn. It should be taught in school, or at the least, discussed in the nation's mass media. I certainly think it's unfair for people -- especially those who consider themselves Democrats or democrats -- to label those interested in such subjects "Conspiracy Theorists" and whatever else the haters and idiots can think of.

[Major Nikon]

25. Must be the crop circles

[Octafish]

30. I admire people who tell the truth. That's why I have a problem with you, Major Nikon.

Why do you bring up UFOs and crop circles? Is it to smear me for expressing an interest in subjects that some "authority" says don't exist? If it is to besmirch my reputation on DU, that would be the mark of a smear artist.

Four names stand for what I know about UFOs: Mantell, Moncla, Wilson, Valentich.

The first three were pilots, officers in the United States armed forces. The fourth name was a young Australian air cadet. Each lost their life in association with UFOs. There likely are others. Here's a bit on them:

Thomas Mantell

Mantell Case (1948)

EXCERPT...

Mantell was an experienced pilot; his flight history consisted of 2,167 hours in the air, and he had been honored for his part in the Battle of Normandy during World War II.

On 7 January 1948, Godman Field at Fort Knox, Kentucky received a report from the Kentucky Highway Patrol of an unusual aerial object near Maysville, Kentucky. Reports of a westbound circular object, 250 feet (76 m) to 300 feet (91 m) in diameter, were received from Owensboro, Kentucky, and Irvington, Kentucky.

At about 1:45 p.m., Sgt Quinton Blackwell saw an object from his position in the control tower at Fort Knox. Two other witnesses in the tower also reported a white object in the distance. Base commander Colonel Guy Hix reported an object he described as "very white," and "about one fourth the size of the full moon ... Through binoculars it appeared to have a red border at the bottom ... It remained stationary, seemingly, for one and a half hours." Observers at Clinton County Army Air Field in Ohio described the object "as having the appearance of a flaming red cone trailing a gaseous green mist" and observed the object for around 35 minutes. Another observer at Lockbourne Army Air Field in Ohio noted, "Just before leaving it came to very near the ground, staying down for about ten seconds, then climbed at a very fast rate back to its original altitude, 10,000 feet, leveling off and disappearing into the overcast heading 120 degrees. Its speed was greater than 500 mph in level flight."

Four P-51 Mustangs of C Flight, 165th Fighter Squadron Kentucky Air National Guard already in the air—one piloted by Mantell—were told to approach the object. Blackwell was in radio communication with the pilots throughout the event.

One pilot's Mustang was low on fuel, and he quickly abandoned his efforts. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (the first head of Project Blue Book) notes that there was some disagreement amongst the air traffic controllers as to Mantell's words as he communicated with the tower: some sources reported that Mantell had described an object &quot which) looks metallic and of tremendous size," but, according to Ruppelt in The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, others disputed whether or not Mantell actually said this.

The other two pilots accompanied Mantell in steep pursuit of the object. They later reported they saw an object, but described it as so small and indistinct they could not identify it. Mantell ignored suggestions that the pilots should level their altitude and try to more clearly see the object.

Only one of Mantell's companions, Lt. Albert Clemmons, had an oxygen mask, and his oxygen was in low supply. Clemmons and a Lt. Hammond called off their pursuit at 22,500 feet (6,900 m). Mantell continued to climb, however. According to the Air Force, once Mantell passed 25,000 feet (7,600 m) he supposedly blacked out from the lack of oxygen (hypoxia), and his plane began spiraling back towards the ground. A witness later reported Mantell's Mustang in a circling descent. His plane crashed at a farm south of Franklin, Kentucky, on the Tennessee-Kentucky state line.

Firemen later pulled Mantell's body from the Mustang's wreckage. His wristwatch had stopped at 3:18 p.m., the time of his crash. Meanwhile, by 3:50 p.m. the UFO was no longer visible to observers at Godman Field. The Mantell Incident was reported by newspapers around the nation, and received significant news media attention. A number of sensational rumors were also circulated about Mantell's crash. Among the rumors were claims that Mantell's fighter had been shot down by the UFO he was chasing, and that the Air Force covered up evidence proving this. Another rumor stated that Mantell's body was found riddled with strange holes. However, no evidence has ever surfaced to substantiate any of these claims. In 1956, Ruppelt wrote that the Mantell Crash was one of three "classic" UFO cases in 1948 that would help to define the UFO phenomenon in the public mind, and would help to convince Air Force intelligence specialists that UFOs were a "real", physical phenomenon (Ruppelt 30). The other two sightings were the Gorman Dogfight and the Chiles-Whitted UFO Encounter.

CONTINUED...

http://www.mufon.com/mantell-case---1948.html

Felix Moncla and Robert Wilson

Radar operator stated he watched the aircraft approach the UFO; then saw the two blips merge into one return on his scope; which then took off at a high rate of speed and out of radar range.

Marksville Weekly News

Avoyelles Parish has connections to a UFO mystery that goes back 49 years. Gordon Heath from Surrey, British Columbia was in Marksville recently to investigate the background of Lt. Felix E. Moncla who disappeared along with another crew member, Second Lt. Robert L. Wilson, over Lake Superior on Monday, November 23, 1953.

According to Heath, who is a UFO hobbyist, Moncla was on temporary assignment at Kinross Air Force Base in ...(sic. Michigan)... when he was sent to identify and unidentified craft over the Soo Locks, which is restricted airspace. Moncla, in an F-89C, pursued the craft for about 30 minutes flying at 30,000 feet over the middle of Lake Superior. He was flying about 500 mph when he was instructed by ground radar to descend to 7,000 feet.

When the unidentified craft was finally on radar it was noted that the two radar images, the UFO and the Air Force jet, were very close and at some point they intersected but only one remained. Heath says that the unidentified craft flew north and disappeared from radar.

Lt. Moncla's jet mysteriously disappeared without a trace.

http://www.nuforc.org/mancla.html

No remains of the crew or wreckage of the F-89C have been found.

Frederick Valentich

His late father holds the missing flyer's picture:



Delta Sierra Juliet? Do you read?

Boats and aircraft have found no trace of the 20-year old Australian pilot who disappeared with his plane on Saturday night after radioing that he was being chased by a UFO. Frederick Valentich was on a 125 mile training flight in his single engine Cessna 182 along the coast of Bass Strait when he told air traffic controllers in Melbourne that he was being buzzed by a UFO with 4 bright lights about 1000 feet above him.

Controllers said his last message was taped and was: "It's approaching from due east towards me. It seems to be playing some sort of game... flying at a speed I can't estimate. It's not an aircraft. It's...It is flying past. It is a long shape. I cannot identify more than that. It's coming for me right now." A minute later: "It seems to be stationary. I'm also orbiting and the thing is orbiting on top of me also. It has a green light and a sort of metallic light on the outside." Valentich then radioed that his engine was running roughly. His last words were: "It is not an aircraft."

The Australian Air Force said it had received 11 reports from people along the coast who said they saw UFOs on Saturday night, but the Transport Department was skeptical. Ken Williams, a spokesman for the department, said, "It's funny all these people ringing up with UFO reports well after Valentich's disappearance. It seems people often decide after the event, they too had seen strange lights. But although we can't take them too seriously, we can never discourgae such reports when investigating a plane's disappearance."

SNIP...

[font size="5"]ACTUAL TRANSCRIPTION OF MELBOURNE FLIGHT SERVICE [/font size]

The transcript portion of the communication between Valentich and Melbourne Flight Service as released by the Australian Department of Transport follows: (FS - Flight Service, DSJ - Frederick Valentich aircraft designation).
1906:14 DSJ Melbourne, this is Delta Sierra Juliet. Is there any known traffic below five thousand?

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, no known traffic.

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, I am, seems to be a large aircraft below five thousand.

1906:44 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, What type of aircraft is it?

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, I cannot affirm, it is four bright, it seems to me like landing lights.

1907 FS Delta Sierra Juliet.

1907:31 DSJ Melbourne, this is Delta Sierra Juliet, the aircraft has just passed over me at least a thousand feet above.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, and it is a large aircraft, confirmed?

DSJ Er-unknown, due to the speed it's travelling, is there any air force aircraft in the vicinity?

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, no known aircraft in the vicinity.

1908:18 DSJ Melbourne, it's approaching now from due east towards me.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet.

1908:41 DSJ (open microphone for two seconds.)

1908:48 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, it seems to me that he's playing some sort of game, he's flying over me two, three times at speeds I could not identify.

1909 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, what is your actual level?

DSJ My level is four and a half thousand, four five zero zero.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, and you confirm you cannot identify the aircraft?

DSJ Affirmative.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, stand by.

1909:27 DSJ Melbourne, Delta Sierra Juliet, it's not an aircraft it is (open microphone for two seconds).

1909:42 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, can you describe the -er- aircraft?

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, as it's flying past it's a long shape (open microphone for three seconds) cannot identify more than it has such speed (open microphone for three seconds). It's before me right now Melbourne.

1910 FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger and how large would the - er - object be?

1910:19 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, Melbourne, it seems like it's stationary. What I'm doing right now is orbiting and the thing is just orbiting on top of me also. It's got a green light and sort of metallic like, it's all shiny on the outside.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet

1910:46 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet (open microphone for three seconds) It's just vanished.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet

1911 DSJ Melbourne, would you know what kind of aircraft I've got? Is it a military aircraft?

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, Confirm the - er ~ aircraft just vanished.

DSJ Say again.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, is the aircraft still with you?

DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet; it's (open microphone for two seconds) now approaching from the south-west.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet

1911:50 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet, the engine is rough-idling. I've got it set at twenty three twenty-four and the thing is coughing.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, what are your intentions?

DSJ My intentions are - ah - to go to King Island - ah - Melbourne. That strange aircraft is hovering on top of me again (open microphone for two seconds). It is hovering and it's not an aircraft.

FS Delta Sierra Juliet.

1912:28 DSJ Delta Sierra Juliet. Melbourne (open microphone for seventeen seconds).

SOURCE: http://www.ufocasebook.com/australianpilot.html

People who are interested in these subjects shouldn't be mocked. They are interested in learning about the unknown. That's why I'm glad to say I am not a person who holds a worldview so small that it is defined by taboos and limited by others' ideas of what is and what can be. Such "thinking" limits one's vision as to what one's own life can be and the wonders the universe may hold. Moreover, it is an incredibly cowardly way to live a very small life.

[Major Nikon]

34. You'll have to excuse my momentary lapses of reason

You see I involuntarily had a chip installed during my last colonoscopy and it's being interfaced by my neighbor's wifi. I've found wearing my mylar emergency blanket helps tremendously, but does not completely eliminate the problem.

The suggestion that aliens brought down Wellstone's and John-John's planes has considerable merit and it's something I would have never considered had you not brought this to my attention.

[Octafish]

101. No need for disinformation.

What you wrote:

The suggestion that aliens brought down Wellstone's and John-John's planes has considerable merit and it's something I would have never considered had you not brought this to my attention.

Was not what I wrote nor implied.

What it does show is what you do and what kind of person you are.

[Major Nikon]

103. Then why bring it up?

[Octafish]

110. DISINFORMATION Part 2: How Trolls Control an Internet Forum

EXCERPT...

Present False Evidence
Whenever possible, manufacture new “facts” to conflict with opponent presentations.

CONTINUED...

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/02/disinformation-part-2-detailed-tips-for-trolls/

You brought it up.

[Major Nikon]

111. Here's your alien abduction post...

I think it speaks for itself.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1450080

[Octafish]

113. No where do I mention aliens, though.

The post is about disappearances and deaths of pilots associated with UFOs.

Big difference, even to a pilot as smart as you, Major Nikon.

[Major Nikon]

117. True

I suppose it's possible one that incessantly posts about crop circles and UFOs isn't obsessed with aliens.

[Octafish]

120. So why do you need to imply I said that?

To smear.

[Major Nikon]

122. Fair enough

I will happily admit(again) that someone who posts incessantly about UFOs and crop circles isn't necessarily obsessed with aliens.

Now when are you going to put up or shut up about smearing me with Bush and Cheney?

Still waiting on that.

[Judi Lynn]

36. Never had known this and see it's completely consistant with RN's character.

What a bitter shame that twisted man was ever elected for anything.

Thank you for your effort to share your research on situations which matter so much they've done everything possible to keep them hidden.

Deeply appreciated.

[Octafish]

41. No. What's ''loony left'' is siding with Karl Rove over Don Siegelman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016139494

That's Loony.

[Octafish]

77. After two judges tossed the case, they found a Rove appointee.

DON SIEGELMAN: Well, no one wants to go to prison for something that is not a crime, and especially one orchestrated by Karl Rove. Everyone remembers the eight attorney—the eight U.S. attorneys who were fired by Rove during the Bush administration because they would not pursue political prosecutions. Well, the U.S. attorney in Alabama, appointed by Bush, vetted by Rove, pursued a political prosecution, and this is the flip side of that congressional investigation that stirred up a stink about how Rove was using the Department of Justice as a political weapon.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/11/former_alabama_gov_don_siegelman_speaks

You side with the people who railroaded Don Siegelman, rjsquirrel. That is sad.

[Octafish]

19. Lane didn't even mention CIA in ''Rush to Judgement''

Yet, the CIA instructed its ''Media Assets'' to target Mark Lane in 1967.

This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

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

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Source: http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

Copy of actual memo: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=24678&search=concerning_criticism+of+the+warren+report#relPageId=1&tab=page

Proud to say that I wrote about this on DU in 2003: CIA memo: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report. Time flies.

Also proud to write that if it weren't for DU, many people would never know about it.

[FSogol]

5. Aha, so only 50 years after coming up with his theory, tptb found a way to silence Mr. Lane.

RIP, Mr. Lane.

[Octafish]

20. Time runs out for all human beings.

"The Powers That Be" just have to wait it out and, eventually, after 70 or maybe 100 years or so, their problem is gone.

Their real problem comes in when the messenger's report is so shocking it threatens their power and positions.

In Mark Lane's case, it was the CIA. And they did all they could to demonize him through professional propagandists and the mass media.

[Doctor_J]

6. Excellent book. He refused to believe that a dim-witted former commie, with poor marksmanship,

using a low-performance rifle, could singlehandedly plan and execute the most famous murder of the 20th century.

[christx30]

7. I've tried to recreate the shots in

JFK reloaded. Must have played that one scene 100+ times. The closest I got was 86%.

[Octafish]

31. Lane said J Edgar Hoover naming Oswald the lone assassin within hours was a sign of cover-up.

There is no way that Hoover and the FBI could determine whether Oswald acted alone or had accomplices -- such as buying weapons, arranging for work on the motorcade route, etc., let alone determining whether Oswald was part of a team of assassins hired by plotters in the shadows. Yet, Hoover made the determination and that was that, no matter the facts and evidence to the contrary.

Many of the issues first raised in "Rush to Judgment" are now backed by solid evidence from the government's own files, made public in the intervening years. Among the things Lane first reported in 1966 and now are established as FACT are the CIA's pre-assassination dealings with Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA-Mafia assassination plots.

[jwirr]

8. I bought his book on the assassination and for many years

cut out newspaper articles that applied to the book's theory and made notes on the edges of the pages. Being homeless now I have lost a lot of books and that was one of them. I thought his theory was very plausible. Still do.

[Octafish]

37. Thank you for sharing that, jwirr.

First, I hope you get back into a place of your own. More than ever, in the wealthiest times by far ever, the world is driven by greed. There is no valid reason all people can live in a decent home. Do you have someone who is helping you?

Second, in the days before the Internet, only a few people were willing to the hard work of collecting information. Pulling disparate sources together into one place -- a scrapbook, a folder, a desk drawer -- made it possible to THINK more completely about a subject. The Internet gives access to mountains of data, which often covers the small deposit of information.

Mr. Rex Bradford helped combine the best of both concepts for us interested in the truth regarding the assassination of President Kennedy: http://www.history-matters.com/

[jwirr]

44. Being homeless is still a problem but finally my daughter has

found a way of getting a "tiny-house" for me on her yard. We are working on getting it livable. I will be okay.

Thank you for the link. Very interesting.

[2naSalit]

10. ...

[Octafish]

63. Truly a great American. Some of his accomplishments...

Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 12:32 PM - Edit history (2)

At Duquesne, he remarked that after appearing on William Buckley's "Firing Line," a PBS show, US broadcasters never allowed him to be interviewed in a broadcast reaching more than one US city at a time. He said that it was when the CBC broadcast an interview from Toronto that reached all of Canada that people in US towns near the border were able to hear him talk about the assassination of President Kennedy.

Biography of Mark Lane

by Ken Rahn

Mark Lane is one of the best-known researchers of the JFK assassination. He is also one of the most outspoken and controversial. He is a New York defense lawyer with strong leftist leanings and a strong social conscience, having involved himself in many causes over the years, such as the unjust exclusion of Negroes and Puerto Ricans from the juries in New York, the effects of widespread pretrial publicity upon the rights of the defendants, and the mistreatment of mentally retarded children in a New York State school. In 1959, helped found the Reform Democratic Movement within the New York Democrat Party. In 1960, he was elected to the New York Legislature, where he served for one term with the support of Eleanor Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, who was a Presidential Candidate at the time. In the legislature, he worked to abolish capital punishment, exposed a scandal in the construction of fallout shelters, and worked with New York Mary Robert Wagner on its housing problem. Perhaps one of the reasons he has been so interested in the assassination is that he managed JFK’s 1960 presidential campaign in the New York City area.

After the JFK assassination, Lane founded the Citizens’ Committee of Inquiry in New York City, where he spoke virtually daily on the assassination (before the Warren Report had been issued). He discussed the assassination widely in Europe because he felt that practically the only way to inform the American people about the assassination was to speak about it over there. Those efforts brought him into contact with Bertrand Russell and his then aide, Ralph Schoenman. Lane’s influence on Russell led the latter to publish his famous (or infamous?) “16 Questions On The Assassination” in the U.S. in September 1964.

He volunteered to defend Lee Harvey Oswald before the Warren Commission, but they refused him. He was then retained in 1964 by Marguerite Oswald to defend her son's interests, and was the only witness to request an open hearing. These events made him persona non grata with the Commission. Later he worked with Jim Garrison in New Orleans on Clay Shaw case, which was featured in Oliver Stone’s famous movie JFK.

Lane has written widely on the assassination. His first book on the subject was Rush to Judgment, which appeared in the U.S. in August 1966, in Great Britain in September 1966 (in hardcover), and then in 1967 as the Paperback Penguin Edition in Britain. He then wrote A Citizen’s Dissent in 1968. He has two screenplays dealing with the assassination, Executive Action and Plausible Denial, the first of which became a movie. He has produced two documentary films on the assassination, Rush to Judgment and Two Men In Dallas. He has also written one play, The Trial Of James Earl Ray.

Mark Lane has also been active in trying to understand the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination. He was James Earl Ray’s lawyer, then later wrote (with Dick Gregory) a book on that assassination, entitled Murder in Memphis).

Lane was also a lawyer for Jim Jones’s “People’s Temple” in Guyana. Regarding that relationship, Michael Benson noted in Who’s Who In The JFK Assassination that “Lane’s role in the uncovering of a JFK conspiracy is made more intriguing by the fact that Lane was a lawyer for Jim Jones’s People’s Temple in Jonestown, Guyana, and managed to escape the bizarre community just before the massacre. According to researcher John Judge (Critique, Spring/Summer 1986), Jonestown was not a religious community at all, but rather a part of the CIA mind-control program known as MK/ULTRA”. Whew!

More recently, Lane has been a lawyer for the far-right Liberty Lobby, headed by Willis Carto. In 1985, he successfully defended that group’s publication The Spotlight. That case led to his writing the 1991 book Plausible Denial, which claims that the CIA killed Kennedy.

SNIP...

We feature here Lane's article "Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer's Brief." that appeared in the National Guardian of 19 December 1963, or just four weeks after the assassination. As far as I can find, this is the first American reaction of a critical nature. It was an enormously influential article, and set the stage for Lane's years of intense activity regarding the case. Lane tells how the article came to be in the first chapter of his 1968 book A Citizen's Dissent: Mark Lane Replies. It seems that The New York Times had published on November 26th the text of Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade's press conference of the 24th, shortly after Oswald's death had been announced, in which Wade presented fifteen assertions concerning the sole guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. Lane began to study the charges and compare them with what was then known about the case, and found many contradictions. He rapidly produced a ten-thousand-word article (the equivalent of twenty single-spaced pages) and started to shop it around. In his words, he offered it "gratis, to almost every periodical in the United States," including The Nation, Fact, The Reporter, Look, Life, the Saturday Evening Post, The New Republic, and The Progressive. Eventually James Aronson agreed to publish it in the leftist National Guardian, where it occupied five tabloid-size pages. Lane states that so many additional press runs were needed to keep the newsstands supplied that the Guardian reprinted it as a special pamphlet. Other publishers reacted in mixed ways. The New York Times published a long story on Lane's points, but to the best of Lane's knowledge no other paper in the country touched it. Lanes notes that the Guardian later reported that "Abroad the reaction was quite different. In Rome the Lane brief was scheduled to be printed in full in Paese Sera, the largest in the evening field, and in Liberation in Paris. Oggi, an Italian magazine with a circulation of one million, sought permission to reprint. The Japanese press and news agencies also were on top of the story. Several Mexican papers picked it up, too."

CONTINUED...

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Lane/Lanebio.html

He came to speak in Detroit in 1993. I was unable to attend, but heard him interviewed on the radio. Caller after caller -- filtered by the station, of course -- all came on to criticize and slam him for daring to say CIA was involved. He asked the host if there was anybody in Detroit who'd read his books?

[MinM]

11. Citizen Lane: freedom rider, screenwriter...

Citizen Lane by NCIS' Pauley Perrette

Mark Lane co-wrote Executive Action (20 years before JFK)...

The criticism of the film and its suggestion of a Military-industrial complex conspiracy led to the film being removed totally from the movie theaters by early December 1973 and getting no TV/Video runs until the 1980s and mid-1990s, when it got legal release and distribution for TV and video. The film was originally released on November 7, 1973, almost two weeks before the tenth anniversary of the JFK Assassination.

Donald Sutherland has been credited as having the idea for the film and for hiring Freed and Lane to write the screenplay.[2] Sutherland planned to act in and produce Executive Action, however, he abandoned the project and took a role in another film after failing to obtain financing for the film. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Action_(film)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024013453#post12

[Octafish]

72. Thanks to his efforts, MinM, we KNOW.

When Mr. Lane started, all he had were the facts as reported by the FBI and the Warren Commission. He found their evidence weak and analysis slipshod, but also intentionally skewed to make Lee Harvey Oswald guilty without benefit of trial or a public examination of the evidence. He found that railroading of Oswald un-American.

Here's his presentation at Duquesne on C-SPAN, followed by Joan Mellen's presentation:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?315655-1/kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-mark-lane-joan-mellen

One important part he talked about was the reason for the official cover-up: President Johnson wanted to avoid an accidental nuclear war with the Soviet Union. He had to invoke the "Little incident in Mexico City" to get Chief Justice Earl Warren to cross the line dividing the three branches of government to give legitimacy to the President's Commission to Investigation the Assassination of President Kennedy" -- the Warren Commission.

Which reminds us that at a meeting in July 1961, CIA head and later Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles counseled JFK to attack in the Fall of 1963, when the USA would enjoy optimum strategic and tactical superiority. It's something important that's been missed by journalists and historians due to all copies but one getting burned...

Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

''And we call ourselves the human race.'' - President John F. Kennedy, after walking out of that briefing.

It took Mark Lane standing up to power, and his purusuit of truth through the FOIA and an act of Congress establishing the House Select Committee on Assassinations. And now -- thanks to the continuing efforts of his colleagues and those who follow in his footsteps -- we have pretty much the exact picture of what happened, Who did What, Where, When, How, and To Whom -- but also to the "Why?"

[Mark 750]

12. Sad Day

Boy, we really need more of these brave, provocative people around more now then ever.

[Octafish]

78. It was a sad day!

Now let's remember that Mark Lane lives, through our examples of bravery in the face of the Unspeakable.

Because that is what "They" really are, evil warmongering traitors who lie America into wars without end for profits without cease.

Welcome to DU, Mark 750! Here is some of what Mark Lane first raised objections to in regards to the government investigation:

CIA bares the origins of its JFK coverup

Three days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA told his successor Lyndon Johnson that the agency’s sources had just confirmed press reports that accused assassin Lee Oswald had visited the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City two months before.

Here’s what the President’s Intelligence Checklist reported on November 25, 1963.



Intentionally or not, the CIA was misleading the new president about what Agency personnel knew of the man accused of killing his predecessor.

The Nov. 25 briefing, released by the CIA with much fanfare on September 16, 2015, informed to the new president that CIA had only learned about Oswald’s contacts with the Cubans and Soviets after Kennedy’s death.

Contemporary news organizations, not well informed about the historical records of JFK’s assassination, found the briefing newsworthy The Washington Times proclaimed the CIA had “confirmed” Oswald’s links to the Soviets and Cubans within days of the assassination. Politico included the November 25 briefing among “13 newly released presidential briefs you’ll want to read.”

In fact, CIA records declassified in the 1990s show that a host of senior CIA operations officers had already learned-and conferred among themselves–aboutvOswald’s foreign contacts six weeks earlier, in early October 1963–when JFK was very much alive.

Here’s the proof: a four page CIA cable about Lee Oswald, dated October 10, 1963. This document was not declassified until 1998.

CONTINUED w/links to the documentation...

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/in-newly-released-presidential-briefing-papers-cia-bares-the-origins-of-its-jfk-coverup/

I met Mr. Morley at the Duquesne conference in 2013. The guy is a top researcher and writer -- no nonsense, just reports the facts -- a real journalist. As long as you, he and more than a few others are working, Democracy stands a real good chance, Mark 750!

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Rush to Judgment (1966) Youtube complete

A 1966 Film by JFK Assassination Researcher Mark Lane. In this documentary key eyewitness accounts just three years after the assassination,

Many of the eyewitnesses died under strange circumstances shortly after .


In 1967, a documentary film based on Lane's book, Rush to Judgment, about the John F. Kennedy assassination, was directed by Emile de Antonio and hosted by Lane.[7][8] It is a black and white film, 122 minutes long. It has been shown on BBC TV as part of the much longer (300 minutes) film entitled The Death of Kennedy. Included are several video clips showing how Dealey Plaza existed in 1963 and 1966, clips of Lee Harvey Oswald, Dallas Chief of Police Jesse Curry, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, Jack Ruby, and his defense attorney Melvin Belli.


Some of the assassination witnesses who present their observations on-camera include Abraham Zapruder, James Tague, Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Lee Bowers, Sam Holland, James Simmons, Richard Dodd, Jessie Price, Orville Nix, Patrick Dean, Napoleon Daniels, Nancy Hamilton, Joseph Johnson, Roy Jones, Acquilla Clemons, and Cecil McWatters.

[Octafish]

81. Those are the Stories.

The lives of the eyewitnesses to history, the people who were there. Their stories and reports have the most value for historians. What these people in Dealey Plaza, or worked with Oswald, and what they experienced are very different stories from those selected to spin the narrative used by Warren Commission.

They needed to be. What Mark Lane revealed, through investigation and legislative action over the decades: the pre determined verdict was needed to avoid World War III. CIA had reported Oswald went to Mexico City and met with Cuban and Soviet officials, including KGB-SMERSH assassin chief.

A according to LBJ and Justice Earl Warren, the idea was to blame it all on Oswald in order to avoid tracing it back to Cuba and the USSR and hence World War III. What is odd, is the Joint Chiefs and CIA had recommended the best time to attack Soviet Union with an all-out nuclear attack was "fall 1963." What a coincidence! The FBI had listened to the tape and determined it wasn't Oswald.

[Cooley Hurd]

16. Cross gently, Mark.

I thought of you, Octafish, when I read on Wikipedia that he had passed. Best wishes to you, my friend!

[Octafish]

83. Thank you, Cooley Hurd.

Your kindness and friendship mean the world.

PS: That phrase sums our existence up for me, as well. It's all an adventure.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

26. I am now conviinced the kill shot came from the car behind, the agent with the gun that

can be seen in one picture.

It was an accident but he did it I think.

There is a movie about this on Netflix

[longship]

27. There is a movie about it on Netflix?

There are lots of movies on Netflix. I know of none of them that portray truth. That is, after all, Hollywood's way. Turning facts into entertainment. One must sacrifice the former for the latter.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

61. Pretty clear what happened...

JFK: The Smoking Gun (2013)

[longship]

68. I know. Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.

The forensic evidence is pretty much definitive. Both recovered bullets came from his gun.

No matter how many shooters there were in Dealy Plaza that day the only shooter that hit Connelly and JFK was Oswald.

I know that that won't stop people thinking otherwise. Ruby's shooting of Oswald surely seems like a silencing. Both Oswald and Ruby were what can be fairly characterized as losers. This adds to the conspiracy justifications. Why these two people?

However, history is messy. There are all sorts of crazy things that just happen. The measure of the conspiracy theory is to ask, "if not this, what really happened?" Conspiracy theorists can never answer that question because their entire justification is "not this" and the evidence be damned.

Oswald shot Connelly and JFK that day, and later shot Officer Tippit. That is what all the forensic evidence says.

Case closed.

[Bucky]

33. He was shot from the car behind him? Are you serious?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

62. This is the gun that killed him

accident, but once you see the movie about it

JFK Smoking Gun, it is pretty clear

Watch the movie on Netflix, the result of 20 years of investigation...

Two of the shots were from Oswald, but when the car hit the gas when they heard the first shot, this guy accidentally fired.

[Octafish]

48. Mark Lane reported the truth. He did not add noise.

Someone who added disinformation was Dan Rather.



Pathetic excuse for journalism, carrying water for J Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles. Here's what a fellow Texan had to say:

Dan Rather Blinked

by Penn Jones, Jr
Continuing Inquiry

The greatest criminal in this nation, we think, is a dishonest newsman. Newsmen have been given the highest gift a nation can give a group: a right. Newsmen have been given this right of freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the expectation they would report the truth as honestly as humanly possible. Ordinary criminals kill individuals, but dishonest newsmen are involved in killing a nation--in this case, this democracy. Which brings us to native Texan Dan Rather, a longtime Houstonian, and his new book, The Camera Never Blinks.

SNIP...

But the biggest distortion is what he said he saw when he was one of the few persons in the world privileged to see the Abraham Zapruder film that Saturday morning, November 23. In his narration of the film as part of CBS nationwide television coverage, Rather said the President's head "went forward with considerable violence." This narration confirmed the so-called "Oswald position" for the nation, but he said nothing about the violent backward motion of the President's head which would have strongly suggested a second gunman at that early date. Rather does take care to tell us again that he took no notes.

SNIP...

His book says this about the incident: "At the risk of sounding too defensive, I challenge anyone to watch for the first time a twenty-two second film of devastating impact, run several blocks, then describe what they had seen in its entirety, without notes. Perhaps someone can do it better than I did that day. I only know that I did it as well and as honestly as I could under the conditions.

"But here is where the case gets tricky. Years later, a group of assassination buffs took an audio tape of my description of what I saw in the office of Zapruder's lawyer and laid it over the film as a narration. So the impression was given that Dan Rather was part of a conspiracy. Either that or he was a Communist dupe, or something, how else could he have seen the film, etc. etc."

CONTINUED...

SOURCE: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/05th_Issue/rather.html

ARCHIVE: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jones/id/1917

The secret service guy-did-it-by-accident drew a lot of media attention. Weird how a crap story gets all the press.

http://jfkfacts.org/gladwells-folly-did-a-secret-service-man-shoot-jfk/

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

28. Only 89? hmmm...sounds suspicious to me

I blame LBJ, who ordered it and sent a crew of Cubans into the future to carry out the hit

[Octafish]

84. Actually, it took Mark Lane years to document the CIA - MAFIA Murder Inc. relationship.

From a very good overview:

Oh, Hey! The CIA Admitted To Lying About JFK’s Assassination, But No One Really Noticed

BY: BEA KAYE
Upproxx, 11.02.15

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco in the early ’60s, John F. Kennedy forced out then-director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, replacing him with engineer John McCone. McCone was an outsider to the “boy’s club” at the CIA, and Kennedy hoped the new director might shake things up and bring a fresh perspective to the organization. When Kennedy was assassinated, McCone faced the Warren Commission as the chief proponent of the Lone Gunman theory — the assertion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

In September of 2014, 50 years after his death, the CIA released a classified document related to the investigation into the Kennedy assassination. It concedes that more than 70 percent of the American public believes Kennedy’s death was part of a larger conspiracy, and admits that McCone kept a lot of information secret that could have aided the commission’s investigation.

CIA historian David Robarge included this classified report with his biography of John McCone, who died in 1991. The biography is still unpublished, but the CIA has gone public with the report in order “to highlight misconceptions about the CIA’s connection to JFK’s assassination” (according to their statement to POLITICO).

Chief among the facts that were never brought to light during the hearings were the multiple assassination attempts of Fidel Castro by the CIA, and even the mafia, which could have led to the possibility of a retaliation on Cuba’s part. Undocumented conversations took place after JFK’s death between attorney general Robert Kennedy and McCone; Robert Kennedy’s awareness of the CIA’s attempts on Castro’s life makes it difficult to conclude he wasn’t also afraid that Cuba had a part in his brother’s death. The attempts on Castro’s life were later made public in the ’70s, but this declassified document adds new background information to the commonly accepted idea that the CIA knew more about Kennedy’s murder than they told us.

One example of CIA obfuscation: The agency was apparently tracking Oswald before 1963, after he tried to defect to the Soviet Union in the ’50s. It was part of an incredibly illegal operation called HTLINGUAL that had the CIA opening people’s mail. It’s obvious why the agency wouldn’t want that to come out during a murder investigation. It also demonstrates a knowledge of a known threat in Oswald, years before the agency says he “went rogue” and killed Kennedy:

Max Holland, one of the most fair minded scholars of these events, has concluded that “if the word ‘conspiracy’ must be uttered in the same breath as ‘Kennedy assassination,’ the only one that existed was the conspiracy to kill Castro and then keep that effort secret after November 22nd.” In that sense – and that sense alone – McCone may be regarded as a “co-conspirator” in the JFK assassination “cover-up.”

CONTINUED w/loads o' links...

http://uproxx.com/life/2015/11/jfk-lying-cia-conspiracy/2/

Anyone wondering why wars never seem to end need to know where such thinking got its start.

[Bucky]

32. Can GHWBush account for his whereabouts when these alleged "natural causes" occurred?

Where was Ted Cruz's dad, for that matter?

[Major Nikon]

35. You have the right idea, just the wrong suspects

[Octafish]

38. Here's who to suspect: Those who've spent the last 52 years covering it up, the BFEE.

From just the other day:

Gerald Ford White House Altered Rockefeller Commission Report in 1975; Removed Section on CIA Assassination Plots

White House Aide Dick Cheney Spearheaded Editing of Report to Dampen Impact

New Documents Cast Further Doubt on Commission’s Investigation, Independence

National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 543
Edited by John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi
Posted - February 29, 2016

Washington, DC, February 29, 2016 – The Gerald Ford White House significantly altered the final report of the supposedly independent 1975 Rockefeller Commission investigating CIA domestic activities, over the objections of senior Commission staff, according to internal White House and Commission documents posted today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). The changes included removal of an entire 86-page section on CIA assassination plots and numerous edits to the report by then-deputy White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney.

Today’s posting includes the entire suppressed section on assassination attempts, Cheney’s handwritten marginal notes, staff memos warning of the fallout of deleting the controversial section, and White House strategies for presenting the edited report to the public. The documents show that the leadership of the presidentially-appointed commission deliberately curtailed the investigation and ceded its independence to White House political operatives.

This evidence has been lying ignored in government vaults for decades. Much of the work of securing release of the records was done by the John F. Kennedy Assassinations Records Board in the 1990s, and the documents were located at the National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, Maryland; or at the Gerald R. Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Additional mandatory declassification review requests filed by Archive fellow John Prados returned identical versions of documents, indicating the CIA is not willing to permit the public to see any more of the assassinations story than we show here. The documents in this set have yet to be incorporated into standard accounts of the events of this period.

Among the highlights of today’s posting:

* White House officials of the Ford administration attempted to keep a presidential review panel—the Rockefeller Commission—from investigating reports of CIA planning for assassinations abroad.

* Ford administration officials suppressed the Rockefeller Commission’s actual report on CIA assassination plots.

* Richard Cheney, then the deputy assistant to the president, edited the report of the Rockefeller Commission from inside the Ford White House, stripping the report of its independent character.

* The Rockefeller Commission remained silent on this manipulation.

* Rockefeller Commission lawyers and public relations officials warned of the damage that would be done to the credibility of the entire investigation by avoiding the subject of assassinations.

* President Ford passed investigative materials concerning assassinations along to the Church Committee of the United States Senate and then attempted—but failed—to suppress the Church Committee’s report as well.

* The White House markup of the Rockefeller Commission report used the secrecy of the CIA budget as an example of excesses and recommended Congress consider making agency spending public to some degree.

CONTINUED...

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB543-Ford-White-House-Altered-Rockefeller-Commission-Report/

Jerry Ford, the then-congressman who altered the Warren Report to say President Kennedy was shot through the neck, and not the back, so the Lone Nut Magic Bullet nonsense would sound more plausible.

Unlike the ignorant and small, great DUers remember the role Cheney and Rumsfeld played in covering up the death of CIA scientist Frank Olson. Too bad it's censored history for most of the USA. One of his children is a DUer.

[Major Nikon]

39. That's actually a pretty brilliant plan

I mean who would suspect an 89 yr old man who allegedly died from natural causes being offed by the BFEE?

Think about it.

[Octafish]

40. But that's not what the post was about. Here's something else to know, Dude...

George Herbert Walker Bush, spooky oil man who would one day head CIA and lie America into an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq, son of Prescott Sheldon Bush who tried to overthrow FDR, and father of a pretzeldent who also would lie America into a disastrous war in Iraq, was in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

I don't find that funny. Nor do I find the death of President Kennedy or Mark Lane funny.

For those interested in learning:

On Nov. 22, 1963, in the hour of the death of President John F. Kennedy, Texas oilman George Herbert Walker Bush named a suspect to the FBI in a "confidential" phone call. He then added he was heading for Dallas. He warned the FBI only after President Kennedy was dead. What the FBI reported hearing from George HW Bush:



Here's a transcript of the text:

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

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Why was Poppy Bush in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

Here's an FBI document from the same week of the assassination in which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." Some strange coincidence there, wot?



Here's a transcript of the above:

Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

I do remember that GHWB was head of the CIA when the Church Committee was looking into the CIA assassination programs. He made things all friendly-like and turned what had been a serious hunt for truth under previous DCI Colby into another dog-and-pony show that was big on show and light on facts.

PS: Poppy Bush sheltered mass-murdering jet-bombing terrorists like Luis Posada Carriles. I don't find that lack of respect for human life funny, either.

[Major Nikon]

43. Yep, nothing like a dose of John Hankey

The same 9/11 truther who said HW commanded the Bay of Pigs invasion.

So yeah, channeling a nutbag who claims Obama is the Anti-Christ Manchurian candidate is probably not all that funny.

[Octafish]

46. Is that why John McAdams archived that thread?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/DU_Bush.htm

LOL.

[Major Nikon]

47. I have no idea why a wingnut would "archive" one of your unrelated posts

Or why you'd think that justifies you channeling nutbaggery from someone who claims Obama is a Manchurian Anti-Christ.

What does seem clear at this point is quite a bit of what you are regurgitating seems to trace back to anti-Semitic New World Order conspiracy bullshit which is also why the exact same nonsense can be found on the World Nut Daily and Alex Fucking Jones. But I'm sure you know that.

[Octafish]

49. I posted fact. You post straw men and ad hominem.

And what I posted was fact based on US Government documents. McAdams is a right debunker, gifted in the ability to always come down on the lone nut theory side.

You brought in your victims and curious sources.

If I'd posted anything in error, you'd point it out if you could.

And Mark Lane was no anti-Semite.

You should read more. It might help enlarge your mind.

[Major Nikon]

50. No, what you posted came from John Hankey who is an anti-Semite

..and who knows about as much about a fact as a pig knows about Sunday. Just because you posted an unreferenced picture of something that totally did originate from a nutbag anti-Semite which kinda sorta looks official (no doubt by design), doesn't mean it actually originated from the government.

That's the part you just don't get, and the fact that you simply regurgitate nonsense from wackjobs that fabricate nonsense expressly for the consumption of the easily mislead is what makes you an easy mark for those who have highly bigoted agendas. That's why there's a warning in the TOS about venturing too deep into crazy land.

[Octafish]

53. Appeal to authority now.

Show where I am wrong.

[Major Nikon]

55. WTF are you even talking about?

What authority did I appeal to?

You appealed to an anti-Semite authority. You also appealed to a wingnut authority with exactly zero nexus to what you posted. Yet now I'm the one appealing to authority? You are really starting to lose it here.

Why don't you start by showing where you were ever right? All you did is post pictures from imgur with no clue as to where they came from, yet you characterize this as "fact". Your bullshit is called. The ball is in your court.

Very telling that you didn't include links to show where you dug up this garbage, wouldn't you say?

[Octafish]

57. Your smears, threats and distortions.

There's a pattern to your posts.

[Major Nikon]

59. Diversion noted

And no, actual facts unlike your pretend facts

Very telling when you won't reveal your sources, eh?

And yes, there's a pattern to your posts, Octafish. Like your particular fondness for the Larouche movement, which is rabidly anti-Semitic and homophobic.

[Octafish]

60. That is a despicable thing to write.

Every item I posted is sourced. The documents are from the FBI. They include identifying marks so people can find them.

You don't like where I host a photo? Too bad, so sad.

[Major Nikon]

64. Promoting the LaRouche movement is pretty fucking despicable

You do realize that, yes?

Just because a document says "FBI" on it, doesn't mean it actually came from the FBI. Sweet Jebus are you really that gullible?

You don't like where I host a photo? Too bad, so sad.

Feel free to post garbage from wherever you want, but if you're going to do so from anti-Semitic sources, I'm going to point that out. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. It's not as if one can't browse your journal and find material which YOU are happy to attribute to founders of the LaRouche movement. So it's kinda funny you'd be all shocked someone is calling you out for this....again.

[Octafish]

65. Don't get all frothy, Major Nikon. Those are the FBI documents.

If you could, you'd show where I was wrong. As you can't, you act angry and smear.

Here are details on the documents from someone I respect:

GHW BUSH & JFK HIT

by Russ Baker
Who What Why

What possible connection could there have been between George H.W. Bush and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Or between the C.I.A. and the assassination? Or between Bush and the C.I.A.? For some people, apparently, making such connections was as dangerous as letting one live wire touch another. Here, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in November, is the first part of a ten-part series of excerpts from WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker’s bestseller, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. The story is a real-life thriller.

EXCERPT...

Almost a decade would pass between Bush’s election in 1988 and the declassification and release in 1996 of another government document that shed further light on the matter. This declassified document would help to answer some of the questions raised by the ’63 Hoover memo – questions such as, “If George Herbert Walker Bush was already connected with the CIA in 1963, how far back did the relationship go?”

But yet another decade would pass before this second document would be found, read, and revealed to the public. Fast-forward to December 2006, on a day when JFK researcher Jerry Shinley sat, as he did on so many days, glued to his computer, browsing through the digitized database of documents on the Web site of the Mary Ferrell Foundation.

On that December day, Shinley came upon an internal CIA memo that mentioned George H. W. Bush [the Bush designated Director of Central Intelligence (DCI)]. Dated November 29, 1975, it reported, in typically spare terms, the revelation that the man who was about to become the head of the CIA actually had prior ties to the agency. And the connection discussed here, unlike that unearthed by McBride, went back not to 1963, but to 1953 – a full decade earlier. Writing to the chief of the spy section of the analysis and espionage agency, the chief of the “cover and commercial staff” noted:

Through Mr. Gale Allen . . . I learned that Mr. George Bush, DCI designate has prior knowledge of the now terminated project WUBRINY/LPDICTUM which was involved in proprietary commercial operations in Europe. He became aware of this project through Mr. Thomas J. Devine, a former CIA Staff Employee and later, oil-wildcatting associate with Mr. Bush. Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil (sic) (in 1953) which they eventually sold. After the sale of Zapata Oil, Mr. Bush went into politics, and Mr. Devine became a member of the investment firm of Train, Cabot and Associates, New York . . . The attached memorandum describes the close relationship between Messrs. Devine and Bush in 1967-1968 which, according to Mr. Allen, continued while Mr. Bush was our ambassador to the United Nations.

In typical fashion for the highly compartmentalized and secretive intelligence organization, the memo did not make clear how Bush knew Devine, or whether Devine was simply dropping out of the spy business to become a true entrepreneur. For Devine, who would have been about twenty-seven years old at the time, to “resign” at such a young age, so soon after the CIA had spent a great deal of time and money training him was, at minimum, highly unusual. It would turn out, however, that Devine had a special relationship allowing him to come and go from the agency, enabling him to do other things without really leaving its employ. In fact, CIA history is littered with instances where CIA officers have tendered their “resignation” as a means of creating deniability while continuing to work closely with the agency . . .

Devine’s role in setting up Zapata would remain hidden for more than a decade – until 1965. At that point, as Bush was extricating himself from business to devote his energies to pursuing a congressional seat, Devine’s name suddenly surfaced as a member of the board of Bush’s spin-off company, Zapata Offshore – almost as if it was his function to keep the operation running. To be sure, he and Bush remained joined at the hip . . .

Devine, like the senior George Bush, is now in his eighties and still active in business in New York. When I reached him in the winter of 2007 and told him about recently uncovered CIA memos that related both his agency connections and his longtime ties to Bush, he uttered a dry chuckle, then continued cautiously.

“Tell me who you are working with in the family,” he asked when I informed him I was working on a book about the Bushes. I explained that the book was not exactly an “authorized” biography, and therefore I was not “working” with someone in the family. Moreover, I noted, the Bushes were not known for their responsiveness to journalistic inquiries. “The family policy has been as long as George has been in office, they don’t talk to media,” Devine replied. But he agreed to contact the Bush family seeking clearance. “Well, the answer is, I will inquire. I have your telephone number, and I’ll call you back when I’ve enquired.”

CONTINUED...

http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/16/part-1-mr-george-bush-of-the-central-intelligence-agency/

I met Mr. Baker at the Duquesne conference. Like Mr. Lane, the subject of this thread, Russ Baker is a top flight researcher and writer.

BTW: I was posting those FBI memos on DU2 at least since 2004. I learned about them on DU earlier than that, but cannot find a link anymore. Anway, the important thing for you to know: In those days, we were more interested in what they contained than in trying to discredit the one posting them.

[CanSocDem]

66. You have such patience.

Of course that's what makes you a great journalist. Personally, I fear for the future of the USA when seemingly otherwise intelligent people cannot trace the events of JFK's assassination to the absurd and manipulative election events of today.

But there is a chance and that keeps me going.


.

[Octafish]

70. CIA is still up to its old shenanigans.

From the Great DUer Ichingcarpenter:

The CIA obtained a confidential email to Congress

By Marisa Taylor and Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Washington Bureau, July 25, 2014

WASHINGTON — The CIA obtained a confidential email to Congress about alleged whistleblower retaliation related to the Senate’s classified report on the agency’s harsh interrogation program, triggering fears that the CIA has been intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.

The CIA got hold of the legally protected email and other unspecified communications between whistleblower officials and lawmakers this spring, people familiar with the matter told McClatchy. It’s unclear how the agency obtained the material.

At the time, the CIA was embroiled in a furious behind-the-scenes battle with the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panel’s investigation of the agency’s interrogation program, including accusations that the CIA illegally monitored computers used in the five-year probe. The CIA has denied the charges.

The email controversy points to holes in the intelligence community’s whistleblower protection systems and raises fresh questions about the extent to which intelligence agencies can elude congressional oversight.

The email related to allegations that the agency’s inspector general, David Buckley, failed to properly investigate CIA retaliation against an agency official who cooperated in the committee’s probe, said the knowledgeable people, who asked not to be further identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

CONTINUED...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article24771052.html

PS: Thank you for the kind words, CanSocDem. Your friendship really means the world to me. And as long as there are at least two of us, Democracy has a fighting chance.

[Major Nikon]

67. Why don't you just say "my dog ate my proof"?

I mean it would be just as believable. I mean you expect me to believe that just because you've posted this nonsense over and over again, the bullshit becomes less so with each posting. Your link in 2004 just includes another internet regurgitater with absolutely no bullshit filter. And now you hypocritically include an "appeal to authority", which you claim as evidential just because you've rubbed elbows with them (after paying for the privilege no doubt). Not to mention your "top flight researcher" was widely dismissed as a crank among actual top flight book reviewers. How pathetic is that?

And you really expect me to disprove something you never proved to begin with? Let me show you how that level of nonsense works. I have a redphone to the almighty. I picked it up and Jebus himself just said you are 100% full of shit. There you have it from the highest authority. Now prove me wrong! Can't do it? Oh, I must be right then! See how easy that was? Check and mate!

I get that your DU chums are as gullible as you, but that kind of standard of proof just doesn't cut it with people who are capable of cognition.

Also noted is how you don't even attempt to defend your practice of parroting out LaRouche garbage.

[Octafish]

69. Because it wouldn't be true.

Like I wrote above, I'm interested in learning and sharing what I know about the assassination of President Kennedy. I'm also interested in the assassination of his brother, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

I think most people are interested in learning the truth about their murders. Why? The country has changed for the worse since their day. Here's who's benefited the most since then:



"Commercial interests are very powerful interests," said George W Bush on Feb. 14, 2007 White House press conference in which he added, "Let me put it this way, ah, sometimes, ah, money trumps peace." And then he giggled and not a single member of the callow, cowed and corrupt press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up.

Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention back in 2007. I don't recall even one reporter from the national corporate owned news seeing it fit to comment. Certainly not many have commented on how three generations of Bush men -- Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush and pretzeldent George Walker Bush all had their eyes on Iraq's oil.

I wish the Press had done its job. Those in authority would have to do their job. Millions might still be alive, the People might use the money spent on wars in better ways, and the Republic might see a return to Justice. To get that started requires jailing those who lied America into war, not making them into heroes by shills and apologists.

[Major Nikon]

71. By all means keep on promoting the work of anti-Semites if that's what does it for you

Just don't get all butthurt when you get called for it.

[Octafish]

73. Nice smear. If I was an ''anti-Semite" interested in ''butthurt" I'd be long gone from DU.

As you are unable to show where I have posted anything that's anti-Semitic on DU, that's a smear.

Again, smears are all you have "contributed" on this thread.

What's it called when a person online doesn't do anything but divert discussion and smear posters?

[Major Nikon]

74. I didn't claim you were an anti-Semite

I said you were carrying their water. One need only to look at your journal for that evidence.

[Octafish]

75. You also defend Bush & Cheney

That is what I find particularly reprehensible about you and your posts, Major Nikon.

[Major Nikon]

76. Bullshit

I get that you think that everyone who doesn't buy this nonsense MUST be part of the conspiracy, but that level of nuttery just doesn't fly this side of crazyland.

[Octafish]

82. Be sure to put this in your memoire.

Detailed Tips for Trolls

and don't forget...

COINTELPRO

[Major Nikon]

85. You flatter yourself

Believe it or not regardless of how much you stew over me, I hardly think of you at all unless I'm in need of a chuckle.

If I were to think of you at all, I'd have to say that someone who has to make completely unsupportable accusation that I'm a fan of Bush and Cheney, while in the same thread whine about being smeared after the completely supportable accusation that you are a LaRouche fan, is probably suffering from a pathological case of Freudian projection.

[Octafish]

86. How droll.

Don't worry about me. Look in the mirror.

[Major Nikon]

92. I think you're worried about how close I'm getting to what you're really about

Your fondness for one of the founders of the LaRouche movement is quite telling.

[Octafish]

99. Smears all up and down this thread, but what bothers me most...

...is you defend Bush and Cheney.

[Major Nikon]

102. I tell you what

If you can find a post where I've defended "Bush and Cheney" I'll kiss your ass and give you till noon to draw a crowd on the day of your choosing.

But...

If you can't repudiate the fact that you're parroting out the LaRouche movement's garbage, you must reciprocate.

Do we have a deal?

[Octafish]

115. What do you think you've been doing up and down this thread?

If I were to meet you in real life, you won't get within a yard of my trousers.

[cleanhippie]

87. Your post was alereted on!

Because you '..smeared Octafish as a fan of Larouche."




I'll post results when they come in.

[Major Nikon]

90. His journal is filled with him parroting out one of the founders of the LaRouche movement

He knows this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chaitkin

[Octafish]

93. Smear by association.

Saying what Larouche said is true is different than supporting Larouche, but you know that.

[Major Nikon]

96. 217 results

http://www.google.com/search?q=octafish+Chaitkin&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

So your association with Chaitkin, founder of the LaRouche movement, including many of your journal entries, just isn't that hard to find. But you still want to claim you aren't carrying water for LaRouche.

That's pretty rich.

[Octafish]

98. So those who chronicle the crimes of the Bush family are a problem for you. Nice.

The appellation "psychopaths" sums them up perfectly. Details why from 1991 -- from the Introduction to the "Unauthorized Biography of George Bush":

American Caligula

The thesis of this book is simple: if George Bush were to be re- elected in November 1992 for a second term as the president of the United States, this country and the rest of the world would face a catastrophe of gigantic proportions.

The necessity of writing this book became overwhelming in the minds of the authors in the wake of the ghastly slaughter of the Iraq war of January-February 1991. That war was an act of savage and premeditated genocide on the part of Bush, undertaken in connivance with a clique in London which has, in its historical continuity, represented both the worst enemy of the long-term interests of the American people, and the most implacable adversary of the progress of the human species.

The authors observed George Bush very carefully as the Gulf crisis and the war unfolded, and had no doubt that his enraged public outbursts constituted real psychotic episodes, indicative of a deranged mental state that was full of ominous portent for humanity. The authors were also horrified by the degree to which their fellow citizens willfully ignored the shocking reality of these public fits. A majority of the American people proved more than willing to lend its support to a despicable enterprise of killing.

By their role-call votes of January 12, 1991, the Senate and the House of Representatives gave their authorization for Bush’s planned and imminent war measures to restore the Emir of Kuwait, who owns and holds chattel slaves. That vote was a crime against God’s justice.

This book is part of an attempt to help them to survive anyway, both for the sake of the world and for their own sake. It is intended as a contribution to a process of education that might still save the American people from the awesome destruction of a second Bush presidency. It is further intended as a warning to all citizens that if they fail to deny Bush a second term, they will deserve what they get after 1993.

As this book goes to press in the autumn of 1991, public awareness of the long-term depression of the American economy is rapidly growing. If Bush were re-elected, he would view himself as beyond the reach of the voters and the popular will; with the federal deficit rising beyond a billion dollars a day, a second Bush administration would dictate such crushing austerity as to bring the country to the brink of civil war. Some harbingers of what might be coming are described in the last chapter of this book. Our goal has been to assemble as much of the truth about Bush as possible within the time constraints imposed by the 1992 election. Time and resources have not permitted us meticulous attention to certain matters of detail; we can say, nevertheless, that both our commitment to the truth and our final product are better than anything anyone else has been able to muster, including news organizations and intelligence agencies with capabilities that far surpass our own.

How can we hope to fight the mightily Bush power cartel with a biography, a mere book? We have no illusions of easy success, but we were encouraged in our work by the hope that a biography might stimulate opposition to Bush and his policies. It will certainly, if only by virtue of its novelty, pose a new set of problems to those seeking to get Bush re-elected. For although Bush is now what journalists call a world leader, no accurate account on his actual career exists in the public domain.

The volume which we submit herewith to the court of world public opinion is, to the best of our knowledge, the first and only book- length, unauthorized biography of George Bush. It is the first approximation of the truth about his life. This is the first biography worthy of the name, a fact that says a great deal about the sinister power and obsessive secrecy of this personage. None of the other self-announced biographies (including Bush’s campaign autobiography) can be taken seriously; each of these books is a pastiche of lies, distortions and banalities that run the gamut from campaign panegyric to the Goebbels Big Lie to fake but edifying stories for credulous children. Almost without exception, the available Bush literature is worthless.

But with Bush, this is only the beginning of the problem. Bush’s family pedigree establishes him as a network asset of Brown Brothers, Harriman, one of the most powerful political forces in the United States during much of the twentieth century, and for many years the largest private bank in the world. It suffices in this context to think of Averell Harriman negotiating during World War II in the name of the United States with Churchill and Stalin, or of the role of Brown Brothers, Harriman partner Robert Lovett in guiding John F. Kennedy’s choice of his cabinet, to begin to see the implications of Senator Prescott Bush’s post as managing partner of this bank. Brown Brothers, Harriman networks pervade government and the mass media. Again and again in the course of the following pages we will see stories embarrassing to George Bush refused publication, documents embarrassing to Bush suspiciously disappear, and witnesses inculpatory to Bush be overtaken by mysterious and conveniently timed deaths. The few relevant facts which have found their way here and there into the public domain have necessarily been filtered by this gigantic apparatus. This problem has been compounded by the corruption and servility of authors, journalists, news executives and publishers who have functioned more and more as kept advocates for Bush.

George Bush wants key aspects of his life to remain covert. At the same time, he senses that his need for coverup is a vulnerability. The need to protect this weak flank accounts for the steady stream of fake biographical and historical material concerning George, as well as the spin given to many studies of recent history that may never mention George directly. Over the past several months, we have seen a new book about Watergate that pretends to tell the public something new by fingering Al Haig as Deep Throat, but ignoring the central role of George Bush and his business partners in the Watergate affair. We have a new book by Lt. Col. Oliver North which alleges that Reagan knew everything about the Iran-contra affair, but that George Bush was not part of North’s chain of command. The latter point merely paraphrases Bush’s own lame excuse that he was “out of the loop” during all those illegal transactions. During the hearings on the nomination of Robert Gates to become Director of Central Intelligence, nobody had anything new to add about the role of George Bush, the boss of the National Security Council’s Special Situation Group crisis staff that was a command center for the whole affair. These charades are peddled to a very credulous public by operatives whose task goes beyond mere damage control to mind control– the “MK” in the government’s MK Ultra operation.

Part of the free ride enjoyed by George Bush during the 1988 elections is reflected in the fact that at no point in the campaign was there any serious effort by any of the so-called news organizations to provide the public with something approaching an accurate and complete account of his political career. At least two biographies of Dukakis appeared which, although hardly critical, were not uniformly laudatory either. But in the case of Bush, all the public could turn to was Bush’s old 1980 campaign biography and a newer campaign autobiography, both of them a tissue of lies.

Early in the course of our research for the present volume it became apparent that all books and most longer articles dealing with the life of George Bush had been generated from a single print-out of thoroughly sanitized, approved and canonically admitted “facts” about Bush and his family. We learned that during 1979-1980, Bush aide Pete Roussel attempted to recruit biographers to prepare a life of Bush based on a collection of press releases, news summaries, and similar pre-digested material. Most biographical writing about Bush consists merely of the points from this printout, strung out chronologically and made into a narrative through the interpretation of comments, anecdotes, embellishments, or special stylistic devices.

CONTINUED...

http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/introduction-american-caligula/

Guess they didn't think possible a Baby Doc Bush would come along and pick up where Poppy Doc Caligula left off. I don't give a fig who warns me about traitors. It makes those protecting them stand out more.

[Major Nikon]

104. For those that don't know, Webster Tarpley was involved in the LaRouche movement for decades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

The publisher for the book he is quoting was published by LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review

Somehow this is proof he isn't carrying water for LaRouche, but the warped logic only gets better...

Since I'm pointing out Octafish is parroting out LaRouche filth, I MUST be a fan of Bush and Cheney!

In other words, if I dare call someone out for parroting out the works of an anti-Semitic and homophobic organization, I MUST be part of the conspiracy.

Brilliant!

[Octafish]

91. Please do. The defenders of the Warren Report say, "Case closed." I don't.

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

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

PS: Show where I support Larouche.

[cleanhippie]

94. Lol. It was only because of the silly alert that I was drug into this.

And now I'm removing myself. You have a nice day.

[Octafish]

97. Laugh all you want.

Nowhere does that link or anywhere on DU show I am "a fan" of Larouche.

[Major Nikon]

105. Why do you keep parroting out works from LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review?

You've done this dozens of times. It's all over your journal.

Are you honestly trying to say you aren't carrying LaRouche's water?

[Octafish]

107. Show where I'm ''a fan'' or link to anything of that.

Your word doesn't cut it.

[Major Nikon]

108. You didn't answer the question

Your non-response speaks volumes.

[Octafish]

118. I don't have to do anything you demand, on DU or anywhere.

As for where you defend Bush and Cheney: Go up and down this thread.

[Major Nikon]

124. True, you don't have to provide evidence of any of your smears

But it certainly speaks volumes about your reputation if you don't.

Nor do I have to discontinue pointing out how you carry the LaRouche movement's water.

Funny how that works.

[cleanhippie]

95. Jury results

On Mon May 16, 2016, 10:38 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

You flatter yourself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1451919

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster smears Octafish as a fan of Larouche.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 16, 2016, 10:52 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: a bit too far for me.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I find it so humorous when the best comeback to a superior burn one can think of is to alert. I love this place!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, and inappropriate. Yes it is. Repeated inappropriate personal attacks by Major_Nikon. Hide it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Nikon]

100. Evidence of Octafish's fondness for LaRouche

Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Anton Chaitkin is famous for being the founder of the LaRouche movement.

Octafish has a particular fondness for him and I'm sure he won't even deny that he's parroted out his works, pretty much all of which has been published by LaRouche's publishing agent.

One can also note that He's been busted for this before, yet still persists in doing it.

Here he cheers on LaRouche himself and links directly to LaRouche's web site:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1891941&mesg_id=1891941

Yet somehow we must believe Octafish isn't a LaRouche fan, because well that's just guilt by association.

He alerts because he knows exactly what I'm talking about, but is quite afraid of people knowing about this. I say the easy answer to this is he just repudiate Anton Chaitkin, the LaRouche organization, and chalk it up to a mistake (even though it isn't as evidenced above) and stop parroting out the works of a highly anti-Semitic and homophobic organization. But of course he won't do that.

[Octafish]

106. My reputation matters to me.

You can't show, so you smear.

Yours is a pattern:

Can you prove that a UFO didn't take Hoffa?

I guess there's no hope we'll ever find out the truth about chemtrails and UFOs

Perhaps she asked about crop circles and the USAF as well

[Major Nikon]

109. So why do you keep parroting out works from LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review?

One has to wonder what kind of reputation you're trying to establish, no?

[Octafish]

112. You are so right. 14 years on DU.

Not much to show for it, other than my reputation.

So, in looking over this thread, your smears reminded me of someone:

JFK killed is major turning point in US history...

Which echoes your use of UFOs to smear me. What a coincidence!

[Major Nikon]

114. So I'm smearing you with the very material you are posting yourself

Brilliant!

Meanwhile you have yet to answer my challenge about you doing to me exactly what you are falsely claiming I'm doing to you.

Very telling that.

[Octafish]

116. You smear me and I'm supposed to do what you demand?

You and Bush and Cheney can go enjoy each other's company.

[Major Nikon]

119. I've yet to see you post the slightest proof I've ever expressed fondness for Bush or Cheney

Despite my offer of kissing your ass if you could.

Yet somehow connecting the dots between you and the LaRouche movement is a smear, yet your completely unsupported bullshit about me isn't.

Very telling that.

[Octafish]

121. Defend.

Different from Fond.

[Major Nikon]

123. And you've done both

You and Bush and Cheney can go enjoy each other's company.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1452086

Good god man, that was just minutes ago. Is your memory lapse really that short?

[Octafish]

125. Call me names or a Larouchie, I don't care.

Look where you stand. That is not where I want to be.

[Major Nikon]

126. Obviously you do care

Otherwise you wouldn't waste so much time and energy trying to deny the obvious while simultaneously making the lamest half-fast smears about me and Bush/Cheney.

Where you falsely claim I'm standing is exactly where you are. You should take your own advice and spend more time on reflection.

[Octafish]

127. Not really. I side with Mark Lane. You side with Bush and Cheney, Major Nikon.

Anyone who reads this thread can see that.

[Major Nikon]

128. No, really

You don't get to repeatedly repost material directly from LaRouche's organization and then expect anyone who reads this thread not to see what you're doing.

You also don't get to repeatedly claim I'm siding with Bush and Cheney with zero evidence and not present yourself as completely full of shit.

You're building quite the reputation, but it's not the one you think.

[Octafish]

129. Like self-referential posts.

You haven't posted squat.

Thanks for the smears, though.

[Major Nikon]

130. Sure, I'm smearing you with your own posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1891941&mesg_id=1891941

[Octafish]

131. Actually, that shows me using the truth to slam the BFEE.

What's odd, you never mention that part.

[Major Nikon]

132. If your "truth" was as rock solid as you claim, why go to LaRouche to get it?

I'm not going to even get into the "truth" of a batshit crazy organization like the LaRouche movement floating batshit crazy ideas that only those on the fringe of sanity believe, what I'm mentioning is carrying water for those who hate.

You do so over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, even after getting busted for it.

Do you actually think it's OK for someone to link to an anti-Semitic group simply because you like what they had to say? I'm mean obviously you do, but I'm pretty sure most wouldn't agree.

[Octafish]

134. Why do you spend so much time smearing me and defending Bush, Major Nikon?

The point of the thread was to commemorate Mark Lane. My point in posting about Bush and Cheney is that few people know about their connections to the assassination of President Kennedy.

If you want to bring up sideshow, great. Here's what's pertinent from "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush," information that was nearly impossible to find until its publication in 1988:

EXCERPT...

During the preparation of the present work, there was one historical moment which more than any other delineated the character of George Bush. The scene was the Nixon White House during the final days of the Watergate debacle. White House officials, including George Bush, had spent the morning of that Monday, August 5, 1974 absorbing the impact of Nixon's notorious "smoking gun" tape, the recorded conversation between Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. Haldemann, shortly after the original Watergate break-in, which could now no longer be withheld from the public. In that exchange of June 23, 1972, Nixon ordered that the CIA stop the FBI from further investigating how various sums of money found their way from Texas and Minnesota via Mexico City to the coffers of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) and thence into the pockets of the "Plumbers" arrested in the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building. These revelations were widely interpreted as establishing a "prima facie" case of obstruction of justice against Nixon. That was fine with George, who sincerely wanted his patron and benefactor Nixon to resign. George's great concern was that the smoking gun tape called attention to a money-laundering mechanism which he, together with Bill Liedtke of Pennzoil, and Robert Mosbacher, had helped to set up at Nixon's request. When Nixon, in the "smoking gun" tape, talked about "the Texans" and "some Texas people," Bush, Liedtke, and Mosbacher were among the most prominent of those referred to. The threat to George's political ambitions was great.

The White House that morning was gripped by panic. Nixon would be gone before the end of the week. In the midst of the furor, White House Congressional liaison William Timmons wanted to know if everyone who needed to be informed had been briefed about the smoking gun transcript. In a roomful of officials, some of whom were already sipping Scotch to steady their nerves, Timmons asked Dean Burch, "Dean, does Bush know about the transcript yet?"

"Yes," responded Burch.

"Well, what did he do?" inquired Timmons.

"He broke out into assholes and shit himself to death," replied Burch.

In this exchange, which is recorded in Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final Days," we grasp the essential George Bush, in a crisis, and for all seasons.

SOURCE: http://www.padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK_1.html

OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024079118

Have you posted anything to show what a crook Bush is on DU?

[Major Nikon]

135. Pointing out that LaRouche is a batshit crazy anti-Semite = "defending Bush"

I mean is this really the best you can come up with? This level of nonsense isn't even remotely coherent.

"The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush," was published by the Looney LaRouche press. Are you really suggesting the one and only "truth" can only be found there?

That's pathetic. Damn pathetic even.

Have you posted anything to show what a crook Bush is on DU?

I wouldn't piss in the ear of the entire Bush clan if their brains were on fire, but I'm sure as fuck not going to a nutbag anti-Semite to dig up dirt on him.

[Octafish]

136. But you were calling me an anti-Semite Larouche supporter all over upthread.

So, where have you posted even one thing to show what a crook Bush is on this or any other thread on DU?

[Major Nikon]

137. Bullshit

I said LaRouche is an anti-Semite and you are carrying his water. Whether or not that makes YOU an anti-Semite is for you to know, but I never made that allegation because unlike you I'm not going to make an allegation I can't support.

I don't make allegations I can't back up. You do. That's how you operate. You dig up complete and utter bullshit from very disreputable sources, some of which you know are anti-Semitic, make completely unsupportable claims about it, and then pretend it's the responsibility of everyone else to prove wrong what you never proved right to begin with. You use words like "truth" and "fact" in place of 'barely coherent opinion'.

So, where have you posted even one thing to show what a crook Bush is on this or any other thread on DU?

Where you have you posted even one thing to show I've ever defended, fondled, or whatever YOUR claim was? You act as if it's my job to disprove one of your fantasies that exists only in your mind. Oh wait, that's just par for the course with you.

[Octafish]

138. Maybe not a good time to mention it, but you're repeating yourself.

And stay away from my trousers.

[Major Nikon]

139. You stole my line!

Obviously your tactic is just to get more opportunities to alert, as you've obviously done before. I can assure you I'm not that petty and won't be reciprocating. I'd just rather your posts speak for themselves.

To me it's all a joke. Obviously YMMV.

[Octafish]

142. No. I've used alert probably six or seven times in 55,000 posts or whatever it is.

Most of the time, it's been due to racists.

My alert of your post represented one of two or three times I've alerted in regards to my own post.

Of course, it's to protect my reputation from smear artists, like you Major Nikon.

Here's what I wrote regarding Mr. Larouche:

Fuck BUSH with LaRouche.

Check this out: Lyndon LaRouche, of all the fucking Democrats, has got Bush PEGGED!

This article appears in the Aug. 10, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Bush's Energy Pirates
Are In Global Power Grab

by John Hoefle

In the latter half of June, I journeyed to Mexico City and Guadalajara as part of a U.S.-Mexico bi-national effort by the LaRouche movement to open up a southern flank against the spread of electricity deregulation, which the financial oligarchy is attempting to impose on that nation. My mission was to explain to the citizens of Mexico the perfidious nature of what is being done worldwide under the guise of privatization and deregulation, and to document for them the predatory nature of the energy pirates.

The essence of the message to Mexico was this: The oligarchs want your money, your natural gas, and your oil, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to get them. If you believe they will be fair to you, just look at what they did to California. Their global financial casino is collapsing, and they intend to maintain their power after its crash, through control over the essentials of life, such as food, energy, telecommunications, and other key infrastructure and commodity elements. Privatization and deregulation are looting mechanisms intended to bolster the oligarchs' bankrupt financial bubble, and to give them control of a post-crash world.

In the terms in which it has been pushed—lowering prices by increasing the supply and giving consumers the right to choose their supplier—electricity deregulation has been an abject failure. The case of California is exemplary: People were promised lower prices and more electricity, but what they got was vastly increased prices and a dramatic drop in supply, causing blackouts when demand was at only two-thirds of previous peak usage. Unable to hide the damage they did in California, the deregulation proponents have attempted to portray what happened there as something California did wrong, not something wrong with deregulation.

Deregulation works when properly implemented, they insist, pointing at Pennsylvania as the proof. However, deregulation is also failing in Pennsylvania, so much so that the state took the extraordinary step of involuntarily transferring hundreds of thousands of utility customers to Enron's New Power Company, in a vain attempt to make it appear that its "choice" program was working. Even with that transfer, the number of customers of energy pirates in the state is plummeting, just as it is in Massachusetts.

The record shows that the pirates simply cannot compete on price with regulated utilities when it comes to providing electricity, and in fact require significantly higher prices in order to make money. That is why, as a part of deregulation, the regulated utilities are being broken apart; stability is being dismantled so that chaos and volatility can reign, and prices soar. The electricity markets are being remade in the image of the financial markets.

CONTINUED LOGIC (AND I DON'T LIKE THE FUCKER OR THE WEIRDO)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1891941&mesg_id=1891941

I wrote that to show what a crook Bush is -- even if it comes from a bonehead, it's the truth about what a crook Bush is.

Feel free to post all you want. I don't care and I might learn something. So far, all you've done is deflect attention from the BFEE by smearing me.

Most importantly: You still haven't shown where I'm wrong about Mark Lane and the assassination of President Kennedy, and the roles of the Bush Crime Family, BFEE and all the rest.

[Judi Lynn]

52. There should be a warning before posting the Cheney/Rumsfeld photo!

They were evil, clearly, even then. Makes one's skin crawl just to see Cheney's monstrous face. Yeow.

Thank you for this thread, and your unending patience and poise. I'm certain being right makes it easier to converse, than trying to fling insults as the other part of a conversation which seized this thread!

It's impossible to forget Mark Lane. His work was so important when it appeared, he gave so much to truth seeking and didn't cower in the face of unbearable hostility from the right.

Thank you.

[Octafish]

54. Sorry about that photo. It connects evil from 1963 to 2016.

Thank you for the kind words, Judy Lynn. The sad news of Mr. Lane's passing is lightened by knowing good people remember and share his wisdom.

Our time here isn't long. I want to thank you and the other Great DUers who have added so much to my world. You not only have lightened my heart, you've enlarged my world.

[gopiscrap]

51. I remember listening to him when I was quite young

totally changed my thoughts about the assassination. Ironically, my wife and I were just in Dallas and went to the Book Depository. Fascinating!

[Octafish]

88. Thank you for sharing those memories, gopiscrap.

Mr. Lane was a real American hero who believed that the United States is a most remarkable nation, thanks to its Constitution. He also believed in Democracy -- that each individual citizen can evaluate evidence and make up his or her mind on any issue, based on their own review of the facts. Where he had a problem with the nation is where it becomes un-Democratic: in secret government.

Mark Lane discussed the Sixth Floor Museum at the Duquesne conference, mentioning that they sold many books about the assassination except one: Rush to Judgement.

Here's his presentation on C-SPAN, followed by Joan Mellen's presentation:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?315655-1/kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-mark-lane-joan-mellen

[gopiscrap]

141. thanks for posting this

I was a small child living in Frankfurt when Kennedy came to Berlin and early that morning my parents and I flew to Berlin to see him. Later that year we were living in Tacoma WA and he came to our minor league ballpark stadium and I got to see him there two months before he was assassinated. I have always been interested in the assassination. I got my US citizenship and settled in the US as an adult. When going to WSU I was able to take a graduate course on the Kennedy assassination while a student. I have a minor in US History and always joked that if I went for a doctorate it would be on the Kennedy assassination. I have always been very interested in what Mark Lane, Jim Garrison et al have to say about those days in Dallas

[dflprincess]

56. I heard him speak at the University of Minnesota at least 40 years ago.

I had read RTJ and hearing him speak was fascinating. I also recall that it was the first time I saw an unedited copy of the Zapruder film and seeing the whole thing was quite a shock at the time.

[Octafish]

89. Thank you for sharing those memories, dflprincess.

Mr. Lane spoke at the Duquesne conference off the top of his head on the subject of the secret government agencies and their roles in the assassination.

Here's his presentation on C-SPAN:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?315655-1/kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-mark-lane-joan-mellen

PS: John Groden also was at the Duquesne conference and discussed the photographic evidence. Anyone who sees the Zapruder film can see the direction of the fatal shot that struck the President. It wasn't from behind. Mr. Groden discussed the following film, taken at Love Field a few minutes before on that awful day:

Afterward, in William Manchester's book, Death of a President, we see the "official story" of what happened:

"Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa on November 18 (1963), just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark." (1988 Harper & Row/Perennial Library edition, pp. 37-38)

The thing is PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.

Not until 35 years later do we learn the truth, though, when the great investigator Vincent Palamara asked the Secret Service agents who were there what happened in 1963:

Agents Go On Record

Thank you for remembering and understanding, dflprincess.

[dflprincess]

140. And thank you for all your research

over the years I've read a lot about the Kennedy and King murders and I have learned so much from your posts. I really do appreciate it.

[KansDem]

79. NYT calls Lane a "conspiracy theorist?"

Yeah, right... I'm sick and tired of being told JFK was killed by a lone gunman. I've seen the Zapruder film: JFK was shot from both front and back. But yet, the NYT would call me a "conspiracy theorist" because I don't subscribe to the official conspiracy theory.

[Octafish]

80. Thank you for pointing that out, KansDem.

The irony of The New York Times using the loaded term in Lane's biography shows that they are so low as to tar the memory of a good man.

Lane did no "theorizing." He stated the facts and let others see them and make of them what they will. That is the Democratic and scientific approach to learning, information, and knowledge, as well as forms the basis for journalism and history.

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

One of the important speakers there I was privileged to meet and hear is Lisa Pease, who discussed "The Covert Corruption of Culture: How Our Reaction to JFK's Assassination and Cover-Up Determines Our Future." A researcher, writer and editor, her presentation examined our information environment and what it means for our selves, our nation, and our planet.



Lisa Pease defined culture as what we experience on a shared basis. She described a talk with a colleague from China who told her about "Hard Power" and "Soft Power." A nation's military and police forces are examples of Hard Power. Soft Power is wielded through the mass media, entertainment industries, and the arts. The latter create culture. And culture shapes belief.

Ms. Pease said she likes to correct inaccuracies in the press and encourages us to do likewise. One egregious example is the treatment afforded the assassination of President Kennedy. Not only have the basic facts and questions around Dallas been misrepresented, information that indicates a conspiracy behind the assassination have been suppressed by the nation's news media. Despite the biased coverage and propaganda, a majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission case against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Professional propagandists shape the national information environment. To help We the People preserve democracy, she recommends everyone read "1984" by George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair).

"That is the best book you all should read, because that is our future if we don't take back what's been done to us in the last, many years. 'Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.' And I'm adding who controls culture, controls the present, because culture shapes our beliefs. Every day, every minute, everything you hear is input, and our brains are just recording it all and making assumptions, rightly or wrongly. The goal of my talk here is to help you make, maybe, better decisions about which inputs to let reach you and maybe when to recognize you are being propagandized. There is a culture war going on, specifically about this issue."

Ms. Pease has worked in the news and entertainment industry. She originally hoped that the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a lone madman. After starting to research the assassinations of President Kennedy -- and later that of Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy -- she realized that the facts indicated conspiracy and that the perpetrators had not been brought to justice. She wanted to talk about her work on the national news media, but after being invited to appear on television, she would see her segments left off of broadcasts. A booking agent explained to her the true picture: "Unless you support the Warren Commission, you will not get on television."

I can personally attest to Ms. Pease's contention regarding biased coverage. In 1993, during the 30th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, I conducted a Content Analysis of New York Times coverage of the assassination anniversary as part of a college program. Using agreement by three coders, we examined the NYT coverage and found fully three-fourths of the paper's space that was devoted to Dallas went to one book, Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" which supported the Warren Commission's findings. Even though many important works were published around that year indicating conspiracy (including "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" by Peter Dale Scott, "Destiny Betrayed" by James DiEugenio, and "The Last Investigation" by Gaeton Fonzi), they got near-zero coverage in the Paper of Record. In the 20 years since, much new has been learned. The Times, Washington Post and the few networks that produce most of the content Americans hear as news have stuck to the WC line.

"What's at stake are lives, literally lives, are at stake," Ms. Pease said. "By not reporting the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy, the media enabled the assassinations of others. Had the public known about the CIA's roles in coups and assassinations before Kennedy was killed, maybe we would have approached the Warren Report quite a bit differently. And, of course, by not prosecuting the agency for lying to the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations), regardless, regardless -- i'm going to say it a third time -- regardless of whether the CIA was involved in the assassination, by not holding the CIA accountable for lying about anything to Congress is probably the worst mistake this country could make, because we cease to be a democracy when we give up oversight. We do not elect the people in the CIA. We do elect the people in Congress. And that is our only hold on this national security state. We need to hold our elected representatives accountable when they don't hold the national security state accountable. And that goes for all this stuff that's going on today with the NSA revelations. The former NSA director provably lied to Congress, it's right there on video; many of us have actually seen it. It's really important that man be held accountable, that agency be held accountable, because he's not just lying to congress, he's lying to all of us. That's not how democracy functions. These very types of lies that go unchallenged that led us to attack,
literally millions of innocent people in Iraq...These are people who have not done us any harm. Lies are killing people."

Ms. Pease cited several examples of important information that the nation's press have ignored from Kennedy Administration that are relevant for the public to know. Official documents from the CIA itself prove conclusively that President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were unaware of CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro -- assassination plans that began in 1960 under President Eisenhower and DCI Allen Dulles. Yet, the news media continue to repeat the canard that Kennedy ordered the plan. I'm proud to say, we on DU have discussed the Truth -- what Democracy most needs to survive.

Thank you for grokking, Kans Dem. I'd say "Believe it or not," but I really was just about to point out NYT's headline a few minutes ago for a thread above and logged back onto DU. Associative Universe, wot?

[CanSocDem]

133. The effects of propaganda on display.

It isn't that easy to wade through, but every now and then a living example of "media censorship" makes an appearance to show us all that ignorance really is a(n) 'American' virtue. So utterly convinced that Not Knowing is superior to facing the ugly truth.

At least 'the ugly truth' is being discussed at a national level(these days), notwithstanding the real possibility that the end of the discussion will be when two champions of "Not Knowing" will vie for your vote.

Keep up the good work.


.