+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: The WAR between JFK and CIA (/Thread-The-WAR-between-JFK-and-CIA)
The WAR between JFK and CIA - Jim Hargrove - 15-03-2014
David Josephs Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:Looks to me like two separate operations co-ordinated from on high.
One team was tasked with killing Kennedy.
The other team was tasked with sheep-dipping/killing Oswald the Red Agent.
We hear a lot about the latter, they who screwed the pooch.
I doubt if we've ever heard one word about the guys who actually killed Kennedy.
I apply a negative template to Oswald -- anyone who had anything to do with the guy had nothing to do with the actual murder of JFK.
Back-up patsies, the lot of them.
Kudos Cliff... well said.
What remains the key aspect of magic and illusion? Keep them looking over here, while reality is over there.
::fortuneteller::
Whew! What a relief.
We don't have to blame the one drop-dead known culprit in this case because everything is just TOO DEEP to understand.
Smoke and mirrors. Fog and confusion... and damn the EVIDENCE.
.
CIA Accountant James Wilcott, in sworn testimony to the HSCA:
Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.
. . . .
Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?
Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA.
Jim
CIA Accountant James Wilcott, in sworn testimony to the HSCA:
Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer--I am sure it was a Case Officer--came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money" either for the Oswald project or for Oswald.
. . . .
Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?
Mr. Wilcott. At least--there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA.
The WAR between JFK and CIA - Jim Hargrove - 15-03-2014
Apologists for the CIA will now make posts below this note, attacking me!
The WAR between JFK and CIA - Jim Hargrove - 15-03-2014
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Apologists for the CIA will now make posts below this note, attacking me!
Tired of waiting? Fine, I'll attack myself!
Deep Thinkers know damned well the CIA couldn't possibly have set up the patsy AND planned the hit!
I mean, it's not the kind of organization that puts one fellow in an office planning how to burn Cuban sugar plantations and another fellow in an office next door figuring out how to deny it, right? That's not the CIA way. I mean, a lot of those spooks go to church. They're not, like, you know, TRICKY or anything.
And there was absolutely no tension at all in 1963 between the CIA and JFK! Those newspaper stories at the start of this thread were ALL LIES by the Liberal press.
I'm going to just stick my head in the sand and think and think and think and hopefully decide IT'S ALL TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. And I'll keep combing the earth for clues that McGeorge Bundy did it. That's the ticket! This is how I'll finally become a Deep Thinker!
The WAR between JFK and CIA - David Josephs - 15-03-2014
Quote:We don't have to blame the one drop-dead known culprit in this case because everything is just TOO DEEP to understand.
Jim... you might consider taking a breath and re-reading the posts...
No one is absolving the CIA... yet you remain the only person here indicting the entire organization for the work of a handful. while talking about individuals in offices...
Nor have you addressed any of the questions regarding the autopsy, the FBI's involvement (you don't even mention them in your rants)
or any of a myriad of non-CIA related situations...
To assume the people here think the CIA are boy scouts is demeaning and unnecessary...
That you refuse to even consider understanding the deeper aspect involved, the military's involvement and those above the military who were empowered to let loose their dogs of war is to dismiss giant portions of the conspiracy...
Your continued insistence on naming CIA names that we all know as if that proves they are the only players in this game is kind of short sighted.
Your claim that you know the answers because they are "obvious"... from an organization dedicated to confusion and deception does not strike you as contradictory?
Being asked to expand and defend your position is not accusation... it's just a request
The WAR between JFK and CIA - Jim Hargrove - 16-03-2014
David Josephs Wrote:This again is DEEP POLITICS... we have no idea who either Lee or Harvey was or worked for... you claim the CIA based on the evidence we have been allowed to see... have you never encountered forged documents?
'Nuf said.
The WAR between JFK and CIA - LR Trotter - 16-03-2014
It is quite obvious that on 11/22/63, the US elected President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was removed from office in a vicious manner, and in front of many witnesses, with the elected Texas Governor, John Bowden Connally being wounded, showing him how unimportant he was during the removal. And, just as unimportant being closeby enough to get a very closeup look at the wounds inflicked, was the elected US Vice President, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Considering the possible collateral damage wounding of Mrs Kennedy and Mrs Connally, as well as LBJ and Mrs Johnson, Senator Ralph Yarborough, and numerous Secret Service Agents, along with DPD Motorcycle Officers and several bystanders, it is quite obvious a removal from office occurred with a very strong message. That removal was carried out and the message was sent by people. And, with a few cameras handy, that message was made clear to the world.
The WAR between JFK and CIA - Jim Hargrove - 17-03-2014
LR Trotter Wrote:It is quite obvious that on 11/22/63, the US elected President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was removed from office in a vicious manner, and in front of many witnesses, with the elected Texas Governor, John Bowden Connally being wounded, showing him how unimportant he was during the removal. And, just as unimportant being closeby enough to get a very closeup look at the wounds inflicked, was the elected US Vice President, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Considering the possible collateral damage wounding of Mrs Kennedy and Mrs Connally, as well as LBJ and Mrs Johnson, Senator Ralph Yarborough, and numerous Secret Service Agents, along with DPD Motorcycle Officers and several bystanders, it is quite obvious a removal from office occurred with a very strong message. That removal was carried out and the message was sent by people. And, with a few cameras handy, that message was made clear to the world.
Yeah, the viciousness of that "message" is why most of us are still here more than half a century later.
To my mind, Bill Simpich has made the best case to date for who the facilitators, and perhaps the planners, of the hit were. Centering on CIA personnel, but extending into several other circles, Mr. Simpich makes a clear and convincing case in the conclusion of his brilliant online book about Mexico City and the Oswald impersonations entitled State Secret. Read it here:
Jim
The WAR between JFK and CIA - Cliff Varnell - 17-03-2014
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Centering on CIA personnel, but extending into several other circles, Mr. Simpich makes a clear and convincing case in the conclusion of his brilliant online book about Mexico City and the Oswald impersonations entitled State Secret. Read it here:
Jim
Bill Simpich writes:
Quote:Conclusion
I want to start this wrap-up with a caveat. Reasonable people disagree about whether a group of people conducted the assassination or whether Oswald acted alone.
::face.palm::
I couldn't disagree more.
JFK's back wound was too low to have been associated with his throat wound. Period. End of subject.
Those who contend otherwise may hold firm opinions, but they display nothing "reasonable" in the way of fact to support their ill-informed, mal-historical view.
To assume that the guys who were tasked with the "Castro-did-it" Oswald killing/cover-up were also tasked with JFK's actual killing is a non sequitur, imo.
Maybe so, maybe not.
The WAR between JFK and CIA - Jim Hargrove - 17-03-2014
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Jim Hargrove Wrote:Centering on CIA personnel, but extending into several other circles, Mr. Simpich makes a clear and convincing case in the conclusion of his brilliant online book about Mexico City and the Oswald impersonations entitled State Secret. Read it here:
Jim
Bill Simpich writes:
Quote:[B]Conclusion[/B]
I want to start this wrap-up with a caveat. Reasonable people disagree about whether a group of people conducted the assassination or whether Oswald acted alone.
::face.palm::
I couldn't disagree more.
JFK's back wound was too low to have been associated with his throat wound. Period. End of subject.
Those who contend otherwise may hold firm opinions, but they display nothing "reasonable" in the way of fact to support their ill-informed, mal-historical view.
To assume that the guys who were tasked with the "Castro-did-it" Oswald killing/cover-up were also tasked with JFK's actual killing is a non sequitur, imo.
Maybe so, maybe not.
Hi, again, Cliff. Let's at least give Mr. Simpich a full airing of the conclusion of his conclusion. Here 'tis:
Conclusion
I want to start this wrap-up with a caveat. Reasonable people disagree about whether a group of people conducted the assassination or whether Oswald acted alone. Most people do not have the time to investigate this case in depth. I find that when people engage in a serious investigation, they are shocked by the state of the evidence. That is why I don't get mad or discouraged when casual observers don't accept my analysis of the assassination. I am confident that the facts are continuing to come out. For example, I am convinced that the impersonation of Oswald is a historical fact, but I do understand why people who are unfamiliar with the evidence refuse to draw the same conclusion.
The molehunt remains a theory. Further analysis is required to see if it holds up to scrutiny. If insiders like Morales spurred on the molehunt or if they simply knew about it - they had great material to use for blackmailing the CIA and FBI. And even if the molehunt didn't happen which I find very hard to believe - take it one more step. By having Lee Oswald as the sole suspect, just the possibility of being forced to expose the role of the wiretapping in Mexico City to the world was great blackmail material. How about being forced to expose the photosurveillance? Revealing to the entire world CI/SIG's key role in conducting in-house investigations of the CIA itself? How Harvey and his people at Staff D did second-story jobs around the world to crack codes and set up taps for the NSA? Remember how Warren Report author Alfred Goldberg said that Earl Warren's caution that some files would only be revealed "not in your lifetime" was "precisely" a reference to the work of the NSA.[ 53 ]
Any one of these things alone was a major barrier to a reasonable investigation. When all these obstacles are put together, the cover-up was the only possible result. Oswald was a great person to frame, because all of these tender spots came immediately into play.
Once the background is understood, this is not a complicated analysis. The czars of counterintelligence had created a complicated legend around Oswald. When the assassination happened, huge areas of terrain were deemed too sensitive to investigate. This terrain included the impersonation of Oswald, the September 28 and October 1 phone calls, the documented travel of David Phillips, the ensuing molehunt set forth in the October 8 memo and the twin memos of October 10, and the tale of the tapes. It also included the Castro assassination plots, the Cubela story, the FPCC, and just about anything to do with double agents or Cuba.
There is no way to justify these mighty agencies folding their arms and refusing to look at the role of the pro-Castro Cubans, much less the angry and belligerent anti-Castro underground. The top intelligence chiefs such as Ted Shackley at JMWAVE and Ray Wannall and Richard Cotter at the FBI testified at great length that they believed or were told that there was no need for them to get involved.
When the accusations began that the Agency had a role in JFK's death, it's no accident that the pseudonym used by the CIA to refer to itself switched to JKLANCE.
The JFK story has always resonated for the Agency. Interviews with CIA officers reveal the deep emotions running during those times. Many of them liked JFK, while many others hated him. The pseudonym for JFK used by the Secret Service was Lancer he was the knight on a white horse. When the accusations began that the Agency had a role in JFK's death, it's no accident that the pseudonym used by the CIA to refer to itself switched to JKLANCE. At a minimum, the CIA chiefs knew that the JFK assassination did not receive an adequate investigation.
What will it mean when the impersonation of Oswald is accepted as a historical fact? That day is rapidly approaching. It's a reasonable corollary to the Mexico City tapes surviving the assassination, which has finally been accepted by most historians after decades of denial. If the impersonation is accepted, that leads to the conclusion that the CIA knew Oswald was impersonated before the assassination, with everything that implies.
It leads to a second conclusion: Forces in the CIA made sure that the post-assassination investigation covered up the existence of the tapes, which made a meaningful investigation impossible.
The third conclusion? Forces in the CIA covered up the impersonation because of their fear that the killing of John F. Kennedy was an inside job, done with the assistance of CIA officers who knew what action to take to make sure that the assassins got away with it.
In my opinion, we already have enough facts to embrace these conclusions as true. We will continue to learn a lot more as we analyze the existing documents and new documents are released. The watchdog group OMB Watch issued a report in 2002 saying an ARRB employee reported that "well over a million CIA records" related to JFK's assassination remain outstanding. That number doesn't include FBI, Secret Service, Naval Intelligence and other records.
We know virtually nothing about the history of military intelligence in the United States; it should be no surprise that these agencies provided very few documents. While the FBI and CIA provided hundreds of thousands of documents to the ARRB, the NSA provided less than 400. We are only gradually learning how the NSA built the surveillance state in America since World War II, with the JFK case providing a bird's eye view into this story.
Although we should keep fighting hard for the rest of the documents, it's just as important that we read and analyze the ones we have. It's the right time to put together a counter-narrative. We need a process to break down the evidentiary facts that we can easily agree on based on the documents themselves. Compared to acoustics, firearms, blood spatter, motion studies, and a host of other technical subjects, document analysis is a snap.
I've always liked Oliver Stone's movie JFK, and I'll tell you why. To defeat a myth, you need a better story. I believe in the power of the story. If you don't have a story, you're going to get beat. After many years, we finally have most of the documents. For many years, the researchers were trapped with few documents and were working in the dark. That's why it's taken so long. We have been methodically kept in the dark. It wasn't the fault of the American people. But if we continue to stay in the dark, we will have to blame ourselves.
The surviving SAS officers, Nationalities Intelligence officers, CI/SIG officers, and others described in this manuscript and there are a surprising number of them still alive - should be permanently relieved of their oaths re the JFK case and asked many more questions. Ever since 1963, these officers have been forced to honor their oaths except on very specific circumstances when they are questioned during a congressional inquiry.
Similarly, the informants in this case should be exposed to the sunlight while they are still able to be questioned. How can we expect to get to the truth of many of these events when the informants continue to be hidden by the government? People like LITAMIL-9 and Victor Vicente can answer thousands of questions about such operations as the LIENVOY wiretaps in Mexico City and the FPCC break-ins in New York City, and they are almost certainly still alive.
Like in the nineties, it's time to return the power to subpoena statements and documents to an independent board of citizens. We can do this by passing a new version of the 1992 JFK Records Act, which the courts have refused to enforce since the Assassinations Records Review Board shuttered its doors in 1998. I ask all readers to review and comment on this proposal, which I will circulate. New board members, historians chosen by the executive branch, can interview the remaining witnesses before their deaths and ensure continued compliance by agencies and individuals with the 1992 legislation. This model can be used in other cold cases. This is the path to restore the world's history to the people themselves. There is no reason to hide the documents in these cases from the light of day.
With the release of the documents, the American public has now a better place to view the mechanics of this tragedy than even Angleton, Helms and Hoover had in their prime. No one ever imagined that these documents would reach the public, much less be scanned and cross-indexed on the Internet. These documents are filled with stunning revelations. Much of the reason for this book was to let others know how much new information is at our fingertips.
Illuminating the dark fields of the republic
Many people have resigned themselves to F. Scott Fitzgerald's vision of the future. Author H. Lloyd Goodell notes that The Great Gatsby came into fashion after World War II as a codebook to the Cold War.
And as I sat there, brooding on the old unknown world, I thought of Gatsby's wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy's dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night.
Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further.... And one fine morning----
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past…
As a friend of Fitzgerald told him, "Living well is the best revenge." All of us have the power to change the outcome of the JFK story, and many other stories like it. One researcher has described the JFK case as "a jigsaw puzzle the size of a football field." As far back as in 1967, David Lifton and other researchers had big parts of the puzzle put together in publications such as Ramparts. Large sections of the story now fit into place, as the JFK Act has enabled ordinary citizens to actually read the files. There's no reason to reduce it to a series of frightening freeze-frames and arid cliches. Powerful changes result from a people asking never-imagined questions, taking a long, unblinking look at themselves, and absorbing valuable and important truths at the end of the journey. The JFK case is history in the making.
I believe that the impersonation of Oswald is a historical fact that has brought us to a critical turning point in the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. We can now turn our collective attention to who impersonated Oswald and why. This is a key to actually resolving the question of the assassination itself. I have offered my findings on it, like others in the past now is the time to analyze these findings and move the discussion forward.
Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple, addresses what we face with no small eloquence: "Only justice will stop a curse." This case will haunt America and the world unless and until we resolve it. There is no government agency or corporate benefactor that can do it all for us. It falls to each one of us to shoulder our share of the load on this case. Just as with the Sixties cases such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy, and more recent cases such as Tupac Shakur. Just as with the history of lynchings, abuse of power, and wrongful convictions. Just as with the legacy of slavery and the wars waged on the original inhabitants who lived on this land. There is no other way. We can move together towards a morning that bathes light on the dark fields of the Republic.
This work is integral to all movements that build civil society in the United States and around the world. Assassinations are a heinous tool used to prevent individuals and movements from realizing their potential. Assassinations are designed to break the spirit of the people.
Do we want to maintain our integrity as a people? The only way is to stand shoulder to shoulder and get it done. Many champions fighting for social change have fallen to forces that avoid the light. The path to justice is to name those forces and to take decisive action.
JimThe WAR between JFK and CIA - Cliff Varnell - 17-03-2014
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Smoke and mirrors. Fog and confusion... and damn the EVIDENCE.
Jim, that's exactly what's happened.
Ozzie & The Head Wounds play the soundtrack of our adventures down the JFK rabbit hole.
Meanwhile, obvious investigative leads go 35+ years totally ignored by the JFK Critical Research Community unless they get an invitation to a roast of Louie Witt.
The autopsists speculated that JFK was struck with a high tech weapon, a round which would not show up on x-ray. We found out about their speculation from the FBI guys Sibert & O'Neill in 1978
Such weaponry -- rounds which dissolved in the body and didn't show up on x-ray -- was tested in the years prior to the assassination at Fort Detrick MD.
Tested by the CIA and US Army Special Forces.
IF the autopsists were correct and JFK was struck with such weaponry, the universe of suspects with access to this kind of weaponry was small.
Unfortunately, folks of a *certain age* cannot wrap their heads around the notion JFK was struck with high-tech weaponry, no matter what the evidence shows.
GreatGen/Boomers/Older-GenX feel silly entertaining the notion JFK was struck with high-tech weaponry.
That's James Bond stuff. Get Smart. Dick Tracy. Not serious.
Fortunately for the cause of historical truth, Younger-GenX/Millennials did NOT grow up on James Bond, so they don't equate high tech weaponry with fanciful sci-fi.
Today's kids grews up on "The Matrix", where high-tech government perfidy is the norm no matter which pill you take...
"Agent Smith" not "Agent 007."
Millennials stand a chance of getting the JFK assassination.
Boomers will never get it.