Deep Politics Forum

Jim Hargrove Wrote:

Joseph McBride Wrote:A little off-track, but not really. The CIA organ the
Washington Post reveals (as always, buried in the
story) why Carly Fiorina, a failed CEO who is
ostensibly not a politician, can even remotely be considered
a presidential candidate and why she might well wind up
on the GOP ticket as the VP candidate (shades of Poppy
Bush in his early CIA days):

"Fiorina has one credential the other outsiders in the race can't match: foreign policy experience. She has a top level security clearance and served as a member and then chair of the CIA's External Advisory Board from 2007 to 2009 an eventful period during which the United States launched the surge in Iraq, Russia invaded Georgia and Israel launched a secret airstrike destroying Syria's nuclear program."
-- Washington Post

Thank you, Joseph! This comes as an enormous surprise to both me and JA. My opinion of Ms. Fiorina never got much higher than the ground, but no one on earth hates the Agency more than my friend JA, His opinion of Ms. Fiorina has just plummeted beyond imagination, and he asked me to personally thank you for the info.

I am glad to provide this valuable info for you and John. It is the kind of
background we need to know to understand why certain figures (however
unlikely seeming) are chosen to rise in the system. We recall how Poppy Bush kept getting
elevated to high posts with seemingly minimal experience and how he was
considered as a VP candidate as far back as 1968. It wasn't publicly known then
that he was CIA. Eugene Meyer, the Post's publisher and father of future
publisher Katharine Graham, helped finance Poppy's entry into the
oil business with his Zapata company. With its long connections to the CIA, the Post, if you know how to read it (as
a Russian friend of Gore Vidal said of Pravda), is a good conduit
for this kind of intel. There's a saying that if you want to know what the most
important story of the day is, look at page 22 of the Washington Post. if Jeb! (that candidate with no last name) gets
the nomination (which seems unlikely at the moment, but you never know),
it would not be surprising for Fiorina to join him on the ticket. I used to see one of Fiorina's
two yachts moored up here in northern California. It was expensive but still looked rather tacky. Barbara
Boxer made a point of Fiorina being a two-yacht owner. Fiorina lost badly to Boxer. But for a CIA insider
candidate, being a loser of a major election and a notoriously failed CEO are not career-killers.

Thanks again, Joseph.

One of the well-known political writers around (Peter Dale Scott?) once wrote that he had been studying the CIA for many years and eventually came to the conclusion that that it was not a "rogue" force in America government but a true instrument of U.S. Presidential policy. My own belief is that, as an agency, it supports some U.S. presidents more than others, but seems to have a life of its own, and it sure as hell had no love lost for JFK. Even Blakey eventually came around on that issue.

My brother, who was a Washington correspondent for Scripps-Howard for many years, once told me that every newly-elected representative in D.C. gets a lengthy visit from a "friend" in the CIA, explaining the agency's goals and Good Works.

Speaking of which... The Harvey and Lee thread on The Swamp was just shut down by an admin there, claiming there was no real debate. I only posted there because I was sick and tired of seeing the misrepresentations of John's work show up in Google searches.

It's been pretty clear for a while now that Parker, Laverick, and Parnell are basically denial trolls naysaying the evidence they keep ignoring. They go right to trolling in order to divert from the fact they haven't adequately answered the evidence.


Parker ignores the fact that the Oswald double seen at the Texas Theater could not have been Crafard therefore vastly increasing the likelihood that the double Ralph Yates saw was also this same person.


Armstrong's interpretation makes sense and fits the facts. Parker's trolling doesn't.


Something tells me Armstrong is safe from those assholes.


I also see Jim Hargrove has hinted that he believes my theory that Baker saw one Oswald in the lunch room and another on the 4th floor landing.



.

Quote: I also see Jim Hargrove has hinted that he believes my theory that Baker saw one Oswald in the lunch room and another on the 4th floor landing.

I thought we were pretty sure that the Baker/Oswald/Truly scene never happened as they described it.

That the mystery of who they saw coming down the stairs on the upper floors remains - and no on ehas ever bothered to ask Baker who he was referring to in his affidavit - whether it was Oswald.

Other plain clothed men were also ran into by officer MOONEY going up to the 6th floor... he claimed they may have been detectives or sheriff's deputies - yet he did not ID them.

Mr. MOONEY - It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator. So I looked around their office there, just a short second or two, and then I went up the staircase myself. And I met some other officers coming down, plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs. They were coming down the staircase. But I kept going up. And how come I get off the sixth floor, I don't know yet. But, anyway, I stopped on six, and didn't even know what floor I was on.
Mr. BALL - You were alone?
Mr. MOONEY - I was alone at that time.
Mr. BALL - Was there any reason for you to go to the sixth floor?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir. That is what I say. I don't know why. I just stopped on that particular floor. I thought I was pretty close to the top.
Mr. BALL - Were there any other officers on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - I didn't see any at that time. I[B] assume there had been other officers up there[/B]. But I didn't see them

Reading this man's testimony is quite illuminating http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney.htm

------

Quote:One of the well-known political writers around (Peter Dale Scott?) once wrote that he had been studying the CIA for many years and eventually came to the conclusion that that it was not a "rogue" force in America government but a true instrument of U.S. Presidential policy. My own belief is that, as an agency, it supports some U.S. presidents more than others, but seems to have a life of its own, and it sure as hell had no love lost for JFK. Even Blakey eventually came around on that issue.

Jim - while I agree with you assessment of the CIA as opposed to the other POV you presented. As I have found in my research, the CIA and the Military were much closer than the CIA and the President.

I get the impression os seeing LeMay in the corner either nodding or declining the requests of the president as Dulles sees him in the corner of his eye.

Dulles is listening to JFK yet needs that nod to proceed... or the nod to keep snowing the man in teh chair about what is really happening.... which is why I feel JFK went ahead and made the Joint Chiefs expressly responsible for CIA related activity.

Just my take on the CIA and their purpose...

David Josephs Wrote:I thought we were pretty sure that the Baker/Oswald/Truly scene never happened as they described it.

This explains the two different Oswalds that were seen exiting in two different directions from the Depository.


It also explains Baker's hesitation and gaps for a man the Dallas Police knew was a Ruby-connected spook.

As I've written before... whoever this was, was many seconds of travel closer to the sniper's next than Oswald in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor

Baker's description is the standard one: 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket

If Baker and Truly encountered this person as this first day affidavit suggests - this must have been Oswald...

Why not say so and put him that much closer to the Sniper's area?
Was there a conflict with someone else who sees Oswald in the lunchroom at the same time? Not that I remember... no on ecorroborates the lunchroom story.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen anyone working at the book depository wearing any kind of a shirt or jacket similar to Commission Exhibit 150 or do you know?
Mrs. REID. No; I do not. I have never, so far as I know ever seen that shirt.

The first person to see either the lunchroom man or the stairs man is Mrs. Reid.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0119b.htm is the diagram where she makes marks to describe what happened.

There are those who claim to have heard Oswald at the 1st floor back stairs and yet we know this T-shirted Oswald left via the front door.
Did this Oswald shed the "light brown jacket" which his button-down Briarloom shirt most definitely was not.
Was it actually a bad (or provided) description of Oswald on the stairs?

The the WC went out of its way to NOT ask Baker or Truly about what was written in the affidavit exemplifies the WC's desire to learn the truth.

Could they already have know who that might have been so as to stay away from the affidavit during questioning?
They MUST have know it conflicted with the testimony they were now hearing...

Who decided that Baker's affidavit was not to be used?

David Josephs Wrote:Why not say so and put him that much closer to the Sniper's area?

Because DPD had not been given clear instructions on what to do with a known CIA spook connected to Ruby. When he made the decision Baker decided to exclude the man with a good alibi who was obviously not out of breath.


DiEugenio asks why didn't Baker identify the man who was right in front of him at the police station? Jim neglects to realize it is exactly because Baker was sitting right next to the man he saw in the lunch room that he excluded his lunch room encounter, knowing he had seen the same man again shortly after on the 4th floor landing. Baker was aware of his problem in real time. You don't fuck with CIA. Baker was a cop. He wasn't stupid. He realized that when he saw the same man twice he had a CIA problem.


Why put Oswald in the lunch room in the final version? Because he was Harvey and because Carolyn Arnold had seen him there.


Who gets omitted in the final version? Lee, the double who framed Harvey upstairs.


Why does Tippit get shot? Because he threatened the plan to frame Harvey at the theater.


You still need to explain where the two Oswalds leaving the Depository came from?



(Cracking the Kennedy Assassination is a good feeling lol)


.

My take is that Mrs. Reid saw LEE Oswald (white shirt, holding a bottle of Coke) a couple of minutes before Baker encountered Harvey (brown shirt, no Coke). It seems logical that Lee would want to make a fast escape from the building because he knew what was going on, and may even have been a shooter. Harvey was surely unaware of his upcoming role as a patsy, and was probably just following instructions of some sort about what to do next.

Accept my apology for interrupting the speculation of Jim and Mr. Doyle. I suggest a slight rewording of your web page description (recently besieged) and an added attribution, Jim, and you should
be good to go, at least in this one particular instance. (If I was authoring a four parter on the background of LHO, I'd sure as shoot git some larnin' of the google. The dad gum search thing has a seperate,
google books search! What in tarnation ?????)

Quote:The Two Assassins - Page 60

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kb93AAAAMAAJ
Renatus Hartogs, ‎Lucy Freeman - 1965 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions
Renatus Hartogs, Lucy Freeman. wishes. If they met the slightest opposition, he knew only one answer ...I called, "Come in." The door opened. Lee Harvey Oswald, a slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face, walked in. I remember thinking how slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen ...

Maybe some of the Sherpa porters recently unemployed because of the massive earthquake damage should seek employment at one of these mole hills.

Tom Scully Wrote:Accept my apology for interrupting the speculation of Jim and Mr. Doyle. I suggest a slight rewording of your web page description (recently besieged) and an added attribution, Jim, and you should
be good to go, at least in this one particular instance. (If I was authoring a four parter on the background of LHO, I'd sure as shoot git some larnin' of the google. The dad gum search thing has a seperate,
google books search! What in tarnation ?????)

Quote:The Two Assassins - Page 60

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kb93AAAAMAAJ
Renatus Hartogs, ‎Lucy Freeman - 1965 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions
Renatus Hartogs, Lucy Freeman. wishes. If they met the slightest opposition, he knew only one answer ...I called, "Come in." The door opened. Lee Harvey Oswald, a slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face, walked in. I remember thinking how slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen ...

Maybe some of the Sherpa porters recently unemployed because of the massive earthquake damage should seek employment at one of these mole hills.

Well gosh dern it, Tom, maybe someone should actually read my website instead of jumping in and trying to find all kinds of faults with it. If this certain someone actually did bother to read it, he might find that Dr. Hartogs' description of thin, small, underfed Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald is featured on not just one, nor two, nor even three, but four different pages of the site. For example, from the Early Years page:


As another example... aw hell, maybe you can hire some Sherpas to do some reading for you.