25-10-2018, 05:57 PM
I am waking up to the broader implications of Metta's book and Centro Mondiale Commerciale. I am convinced that it is a serious book and that according to almost all of the posters here, it is important.
Let me make a distinction, though. I said that there might be an attempt to "put a face" on Centro Mondiale Commerciale. Let me state the following:
1. There was such a thing as Centro Mondiale Commerciale.
2. It was in the early 1960'a located in Italy.
3. Clay Shaw had some role as a board member of CMC.
4. Because it was in Italy, there were Italians involved in whatever it was doing.
I slightly misstated my interpretation of the "putting a face" on CMC. I didn't mean to imply that these Italians in CMC were going a bunch of stuff solely to cover-up the role of Nazis or that their activities amounted to a cover-up of any sort.
What I meant was, that by writing about all the activities of these Italians in CMC and bringing up the book about them in relation to the JFK assassination, that could well be an attempt, perhaps well-meaning, to make it look like CMC was an assassination group who targeted JFK or were prime-movers in the JFK assassination.
IMHO, those who are promoting the significance of this book should make a "proffer" here as to what the author of the book is claiming regarding the JFK assassination.
We see many books that discuss the life story of J.D. Tippit, the biography of David W. Ferrie, the methodology of Parkland Hospital and their staff, etc. etc. But do they make any claims to have new evidence relating to the JFK assassination? I have at least 25 books which are on my shelf waiting to be read in re the JFK assassination. The count of the books I HAVE read is now over 200 on JFK related issues. I have only limited time available for these things.
Frankly, I am interested in the JFK assassination but I'm not all that interested in CMC or Italian politics in the 1950's or 1960"s. The kidnapping of Aldo Moro is interesting, but I do not read that much about it.
The more unusual thing that I have seen in this thread is that people seem to be excessively skeptical about my references.
1. Michael Liebig (who wrote about, among other things, the CMC) was writing for Executive Intelligence Review. That publication is a top source for intelligence information, maybe the best in the US in terms of volume of information. Like any other newspaper or magazine, it must have an editorial process which must be passed by a writer in their pages. (Granted is was originated by Lyndon Larouche who was a proxy for the CIA).
2. Jim Marrs pretty much invented JFK assassination research with his book Crossfire. He has been writing on the subject for 40 years at least.
If both of these writers hold a certain opinion about Centro Mondiale Commerciale in relation to Nazis, their opinions simply can't be that easily discounted. To put it another way, who could EIR or Jim Marrs cite as a source that would be a better source than EIR or Jim Marrs? The answer is NOBODY. EIR and Marrs are almost the gold standard IMHO in the field.
Granted that the Torbitt Document is unsourced. And the information regarding CMC/Permindex apparently all came from EIR/Torbitt in the first place back in 1970 when the Torbitt Document appeared. Jim Garrison did not mention Permidex in the index of his 1968 book "Heritage of Stone" but he did mention Permindex in the index of "On The Trail Of The Assassins" around 1988. So it looks like Garrison got his info about Permidex/CMC from the Torbitt Document and he felt it important enough to discuss in his second book.
But Jim Marrs and Jim Garrison (in "On The Trail Of The Assassins") both discuss Permindex/CMC as relevant to the JFK assassination, mostly because of the Clay Shaw connection. Their credibilty does not hang on their possible citation of other experts. THEY ARE THE EXPERTS!!!!
Finally, I am still curious about who Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Thorne thinks were the JFK plotters? I would really really like to know, just as a help to my own understanding.
Another statement has been made above that makes reference to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the JFK assassination evidence.
I feel strongly about that question. Unless we are discussing someone who is still alive and is going to be tried for the murder of JFK, then "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a very useful idea. Remember that O J Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial where that standard applied. But he was determined to have killed his wife in the civil suit "by a preponderance of the evidence." So it was proven in court that O J killed his wife, even if not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In fact, anyone who suggests the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the JFK case or who suggests that it is possible to libel or slander a deceased President like JFK (or any deceased person) may be setting up unnecessary roadblocks to identifying the killers of JFK.
But in fact, I think the Skorzeny Papers has already identified the killers in general so all of this, including any new JFK stuff in the book by Metta may be moot.
James Lateer
Let me make a distinction, though. I said that there might be an attempt to "put a face" on Centro Mondiale Commerciale. Let me state the following:
1. There was such a thing as Centro Mondiale Commerciale.
2. It was in the early 1960'a located in Italy.
3. Clay Shaw had some role as a board member of CMC.
4. Because it was in Italy, there were Italians involved in whatever it was doing.
I slightly misstated my interpretation of the "putting a face" on CMC. I didn't mean to imply that these Italians in CMC were going a bunch of stuff solely to cover-up the role of Nazis or that their activities amounted to a cover-up of any sort.
What I meant was, that by writing about all the activities of these Italians in CMC and bringing up the book about them in relation to the JFK assassination, that could well be an attempt, perhaps well-meaning, to make it look like CMC was an assassination group who targeted JFK or were prime-movers in the JFK assassination.
IMHO, those who are promoting the significance of this book should make a "proffer" here as to what the author of the book is claiming regarding the JFK assassination.
We see many books that discuss the life story of J.D. Tippit, the biography of David W. Ferrie, the methodology of Parkland Hospital and their staff, etc. etc. But do they make any claims to have new evidence relating to the JFK assassination? I have at least 25 books which are on my shelf waiting to be read in re the JFK assassination. The count of the books I HAVE read is now over 200 on JFK related issues. I have only limited time available for these things.
Frankly, I am interested in the JFK assassination but I'm not all that interested in CMC or Italian politics in the 1950's or 1960"s. The kidnapping of Aldo Moro is interesting, but I do not read that much about it.
The more unusual thing that I have seen in this thread is that people seem to be excessively skeptical about my references.
1. Michael Liebig (who wrote about, among other things, the CMC) was writing for Executive Intelligence Review. That publication is a top source for intelligence information, maybe the best in the US in terms of volume of information. Like any other newspaper or magazine, it must have an editorial process which must be passed by a writer in their pages. (Granted is was originated by Lyndon Larouche who was a proxy for the CIA).
2. Jim Marrs pretty much invented JFK assassination research with his book Crossfire. He has been writing on the subject for 40 years at least.
If both of these writers hold a certain opinion about Centro Mondiale Commerciale in relation to Nazis, their opinions simply can't be that easily discounted. To put it another way, who could EIR or Jim Marrs cite as a source that would be a better source than EIR or Jim Marrs? The answer is NOBODY. EIR and Marrs are almost the gold standard IMHO in the field.
Granted that the Torbitt Document is unsourced. And the information regarding CMC/Permindex apparently all came from EIR/Torbitt in the first place back in 1970 when the Torbitt Document appeared. Jim Garrison did not mention Permidex in the index of his 1968 book "Heritage of Stone" but he did mention Permindex in the index of "On The Trail Of The Assassins" around 1988. So it looks like Garrison got his info about Permidex/CMC from the Torbitt Document and he felt it important enough to discuss in his second book.
But Jim Marrs and Jim Garrison (in "On The Trail Of The Assassins") both discuss Permindex/CMC as relevant to the JFK assassination, mostly because of the Clay Shaw connection. Their credibilty does not hang on their possible citation of other experts. THEY ARE THE EXPERTS!!!!
Finally, I am still curious about who Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Thorne thinks were the JFK plotters? I would really really like to know, just as a help to my own understanding.
Another statement has been made above that makes reference to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the JFK assassination evidence.
I feel strongly about that question. Unless we are discussing someone who is still alive and is going to be tried for the murder of JFK, then "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a very useful idea. Remember that O J Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial where that standard applied. But he was determined to have killed his wife in the civil suit "by a preponderance of the evidence." So it was proven in court that O J killed his wife, even if not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In fact, anyone who suggests the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the JFK case or who suggests that it is possible to libel or slander a deceased President like JFK (or any deceased person) may be setting up unnecessary roadblocks to identifying the killers of JFK.
But in fact, I think the Skorzeny Papers has already identified the killers in general so all of this, including any new JFK stuff in the book by Metta may be moot.
James Lateer