HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Octafish » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 55,745

Journal Archives

Putin tried to use his intel to warn Bush about bin Laden at G8 in Genoa in July 2001...

Details still reside on DU2:


Really, Bolo Boffin?

Think about it: Hours devoted, just going by the postmarks on this thread alone. Go back through the DU archives and the hours add up into days. Which is one of those odd things that turn up in MetaData.

And those who believe "Them" in the secret government who hold onto metadata and the rest of the inside knowledge and secrets are all good patriots, remember what the national security state has done for We the People lately: Kept the secrets that most benefit them -- the warmonger have-mores -- and most penalized the 99-percent We the People of democracy.

That secret government is at the heart of the rot that is modern America. The management of that same secret government, after being ordered to stop trying to kill Castro, failed to tell President Kennedy about ZR/RIFLE. Then, they didn't tell the Warren Commission they hadn't told him. Later, when asked by Congress, they also lied.

That same secret national security leadership would later tell President Johnson that North Vietnam attacked our destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, later bug the Watergate on behalf of CREEP, later meet with the Ayatollah's people to extend the hostage ordeal in Iran, tell Ronald Pruneface that trading arms for hostages and sending the profits to go around Congress in Central America was a good idea, got paid big time by petrodollars at BCCI and big bucks from Rev Moon, would help loot the S&Ls and later the entire banking system, and made war on Iraq and Afghanistan and other nations that had zero to do with September 11.

Odd, that long string of unconstitutionality by the people running the cia and nsa and all the rest of the secret alphabet soup in the the secret government. Going from their actions, the actions of the national security state are treasonous as they only serve to benefit themselves -- the friends of the Dulles Brothers, Harrimans, Rockefellers, the Have-Mores -- at the expense of everyone else, the BFEE. And while it didn't start there, what we live in today was made possible by what went on down there in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.


Who owns Booze Hamilton?

Know your BFEE: The Carlyle Group

The spies-for-hire might enjoy knowing who likes to go along and get along. Which brings up:

Why was Erik Prince hired to run the drones?

Blackwater managed CIA Predator drone assassination program

Not that what the secret government does overseas would ever be done at home, like the time the CIA failed to inform the Warren Commission about the ZR/Rifle program. They also forgot to tell Attorney General Robert Kennedy or even President Kennedy about it. What a coincidence!

Remember who was elected on a platform to eliminate the Department of Education?

Why Pruneface and the other racist assholes who support him would think that was a good idea:

“Once you learn to read, you will forever be free.” -- Frederick Douglass

BTW: Reagan denied Jim Garrison's request to extradite a suspect in his case, Edgar Eugene Bradley. Some investigators believe disruptors within his office fed him a false lead -- one Eugene Hale Brading, who was arrested in Dealey Plaza. You gotta admire spycraft, similar names and such, adds confusion and makes it harder to follow the story.

Quit with the Sideshow, Bolo Boffin. When it comes to Dallas, CIA calls up its assets in the media.

The facts are the point of how the nation's mass media are manipulated by the CIA.

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. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

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.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620

From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619

So, when you can't argue the facts, the instructions call for an attack on the messenger.

What a co-incidence.

So what? Bugliosi ignores what we've learned over the past 50 years.

Epic book resurrects finding that
Oswald acted alone in killing JFK

Bugliosi picks only the evidence that backs his argument

By Josiah Thompson
This review originally appeared in the June 3, 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi claims to be "Reclaiming History" from the riffraff of conspiracy theorists in his massive new book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The term "conspiracy theorist" is practically married to the assassination, tossed about the way the House Un-American Activities Committee used to throw around "Communist sympathizer." One size fits all!

But according to Bugliosi, conspiracy theorists are the reason more than 75 percent of Americans don't believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission, established by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the crimes. Bugliosi's intent is to expose its critics as "fraudulent" on the way to resurrecting the conclusion of that panel, which found that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.


But what about Bugliosi's more serious intent -- to resuscitate a variant of the Warren Commission's account of the assassination?

In 1993, another lawyer, Gerald Posner, tried the same thing in his book Case Closed. Yet Bugliosi cites numerous examples of Posner's "distortion" and "misrepresentation." He quotes approvingly a Washington Post review of Posner's book, which criticized him for presenting "only the evidence that supports the case he's trying to build, framing the evidence in a way that misleads readers."

But this is exactly what Bugliosi does. Like any experienced prosecutor, he highlights the evidence that furthers his case while ignoring or confusing contrary evidence. Examples of this approach can be found almost everywhere in the book.



PS: Two links to Bugliosi really shows where you're at, Bolo Boffin. Read more, learn and get up-to-date. A scholar, Josiah Thompson is a good source.

Tag Team! Yay! What I wrote 10 years ago today...

Yeah. Code name "Harvey" and code name "Lee" and...

... code name "Oswald" were just three. Maybe they were the tramps who look suspiciously like some figures out of the CIA anti-Castro Cuban community "Mr. George Bush" of the CIA talked with Mr. Hoover about...

Even the cop looks phony...

(e) The three tramps


660. Immediately after the assassination, law enforcement officers conducted a search of the area behind the grassy knoll in which several railroad boxcars were situated. As a result of this search, approximately six to eight persons who appeared to be derelicts were taken either to the nearby Dallas County Sheriff's office, or to the Dallas Police Department for questioning. All were released without being booked, fingerprinted or photographed. (222) Among these "derelicts" were three men who, according to the arresting officers, had been found in a boxcar approximately one-half mile south of the assassination scene. (223) As the police led the three derelicts through Dealey Plaza to the sheriff's office, they were photographed by several press photographers. (224)

661. When allegations of a CIA connection with President Kennedy's death emerged in the years following the assassination, these photographs received wide publicity in newspapers, television and in the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek magazine. (225) It was claimed that two of the derelicts or "tramps," as they had come to be called, bore striking resemblances to Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis respectively. (226) Allegations have been made that Hunt, who had been a CIA employee in 1963, Sturgis, who, while not an employee, had been involved in CIA-related activities, bad been together in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and had participated in the assassination as part of a CIA conspiracy.


Original post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=186998&mesg_id=187218

Ten years ago to the day, zappaman. What were you doing 10 years ago? Making fun of Oliver Stone?

Either way, Ford lied.

He needed to, in order to make the government's lone nut theory work.

Gerald Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in
hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence
on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was
killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion
that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas
Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey
Oswald was the sole gunman.


''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission
report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New
York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and
written an Internet book about it.

The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a
bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three
inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the
public as to the true number of assassins.''


Archived copy: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=133311

Original: Associated Press, July 2, 1997

It's amazing, if not magical, what needs to be assumed to make the Warren Commission theory plausible.

Thanks, but all that makes assumptions and cherry-picks in order to buttress the Warren Commission.

Michael T. Griffith does an excellent job in his essay, "TEN REASONS I REJECT THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY."


No matter how far forward Kennedy would have leaned, and no matter how far forward he would have tilted his head, the trajectory through the neck would have been slightly upward, since the back wound was below the throat wound.

(emphasis in original)

So why did Gerald Ford have to alter the report?

Gerald Ford's Terrible Fiction

Moving the Back Wound and the Single Bullet Theory

As a member of the Warren Commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Gerald R. Ford, then a Michigan congressman, suggested that the panel change its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back to place it higher up in his body. On another page he also added "hurriedly" to the description of how the assassin walked away from the scene. (click on images to inlarge)

Read Gerald Ford's correction to the Warren Commission Report Draft:

page 1 page 2

The change, critics said, may have been intended to support the controversial theory that a single bullet struck Kennedy from behind, exited his neck and then wounded Texas Gov. John Connally. The Warren Commission relied on it heavily in concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald was Kennedy's lone assassin, firing from the Texas School Book Depository, above and behind the president.

Ford's handwritten editing, revealed in newly disclosed papers kept by the commission's general counsel, was accepted with a slight change.

The final report said: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." A small change," said Ford on Wednesday, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

"My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory," he said.
"My changes were only an attempt to be more precise."

The initial draft of the report stated: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford wanted it to read:"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

CONTINUED with photos and original documents...


So, in order for the magic bullet to work, Jerry Ford had to move the location of President Kennedy's wounds to line up. That's dishonest, at best.

In addition to serving on the Warren Commission, Gerald Ford would later become the first unelected president of the United States, remembered as the man who pardoned Nixon and kept all the dirty laundry out of court and the public eye. Odd how often he turn up to help the secret state.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »