Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The dark game of M.S. Arnoni and The Minority of One
The dark game of M.S. Arnoni and The Minority of One

Quote:In 1982, Susan Sontag sparked a bristling controversy on the left with this confession: "Imagine, if you will, someone who read only Reader's Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?"

John J. Miller, “InDigestible: The decline of a great magazine,” The National Review, 11 February 2002:

Let me begin with a proposition. Between January 1961 and December 1963, someone who read only the New York Times would have been better informed about President Kennedy’s attitudes, policies and domestic opposition – most notably and catastrophically, from the CIA - than someone who read, in the same period, only M.S. Arnoni’s The Minority of One (TMO). Absurd? Far from it, as we shall see.

To illustrate the fog of selective amnesia in which Arnoni’s organ has been enveloped by its post-December 1963 coverage of the coup which claimed Kennedy’s life and America’s future: We remember Eric Norden’s piece “The Death of A President,” which dominated the January 1964 edition of TMO; we rarely, if ever, see mention of the same author’s preposterous caricature of the Kennedy, a mere month before, in the magazine’s December 1963 edition, as a hard-line racist:

Quote:“…the New York Post. [That] house organ of eviscerated liberalism, whose unrequited love affair with the Kennedy Administration causes it to redouble its Cold War fervour in anticipation of a few liberal scraps from Massa John’s table…” (“The Prophet Honored,” p.19).

This was anything but an isolated instance. Here is Arnoni in June 1961 in a piece entitled, “Cloak and Dagger: Another ‘Peace Corps,’”:

Quote:General Maxwell D. Taylor, former Army Chief of Staff, was appointed by President Kennedy to “conduct a survey and review of organization and capacity of the United States in para-military planning.” The President’s Press Secretary Pierre Salinger confirmed that the study will include, but not be confined to, intelligence activities and specifically the Central Intelligence Agency.

The use of the term ‘para-military’ indicates that the study will concern itself with activities of an even more military nature than espionage. In fact, the CIA has not been strictly an intelligence-gathering organization; but also a policy-enforcing arm of the American Government abroad.

General Taylor’s mission is at least partly due to the CIA’s spectacular success in deposing a despised Guatemalan government but also, ironically enough, to its spectacular failure to depose the Castro Government. The former occasion must have impressed on the President how much can be “achieved” by the Government’s resort to foreign underground operations, while the latter may have shown a “need” to perfect the efficacy of the foreign underground branch.

For decades we have been told about the existence of a cloak and dagger subversive communist organization that, working underground, stretches the Soviet arm throughout the world and maintains an invisible but dangerous web over it. Now, the President of the United States seems set on using our traditional depictions of communist subversion as a blueprint of our own operations. It is fair to speculate that the nature of the activities Mr. Kennedy intends to assign to America’s “para-military” agencies is that which he attributes, rightly or wrongly, to communist forces. “Power is the hallmark of this offensive – power and discipline and deceit,” the President told the nation’s editors. And then he added that “We intend to re-examine and reorient our forces of all kinds, our tactics and our institutions here in this community.” The link between these words, uttered on April 20, 1961 and the subsequent assignment of General Taylor, on April 22, is obvious.

The President seems to believe in championing synthetic revolutions. Libertarian movements have been launching revolutions? – Why couldn’t the USA do the same in reverse? By accepting revolutionary slogans, methods of operation and organization, we can capture the Great Revolution of the Twentieth Century.

The fallacy of this government by imitation is tragic and comic at the same time. There are all kinds of people who use guns in the dark of night, yet not all are social revolutionaries and visionaries. Some are plain bandits. Others, like many of the anti-Castro leaders, are people willing to shed a nation’s blood to retain or regain immoral and anti-social material benefits. It is not the gun or dagger that makes one a revolutionary but the social reality he is striving to bring about. The synthetic revolutions and the synthetic conspiratorial forces the President wishes to breed will not only bring about a further devaluation of American political morals, but also contribute to intensifying fear of America and Americans. Mr. Kennedy may call this “prestige,” but in truth it is always the forces one is scared of that he rebels against.

Two months earlier, in April 1961, Kennedy’s Peace Corps proposal died a death at Arnoni’s hands: “It is indeed tragic that a basically wonderful idea has so little chance of actual success just because it may be entrusted into the wrong hands.” The major threats to it? The CIA? The FBI? No: Political vetting; and Sargent Shriver.

In June, and again in July, 1961, first Arnoni, then a contributor, highlighted the most egregious horror of the Bay of Pigs affair: Kennedy’s speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on 20 April.

Commenting on that awful speech – unquestionably one of the worst of Kennedy’s career - Arnoni assured readers that “what Messrs. Eisenhower and Dulles often voiced as propagandistic slogans, Mr. Kennedy seems determined to pursue literally.” Kennedy had “put the world on notice that his Administration…will defend…America’s interests irrelevant of any moral or political merits or legal restrictions of international law” and brutally “establish her international power predominance” (“The Kennedy Offensive,” June 1961, p.1).

Turning from Cuba, Arnoni was no less sure of the tactical deceit underpinning Kennedy’s intentions with regard to Laos (p.5). In May, Arnoni had written of the same country: “When President Kennedy launched his greatest display of ‘brinkmanship’ diplomacy yet, putting the world on notice that the United States was not averse to a military conflagration in Laos, he took pains to present his policy not as an improvisation but rather as a considered inter-party course, charted even before he became President” (“Venit, Vidit, Vicit,” May 1961, p.1).

July saw TMO devote three pages to Norbett L. Mintz’s ruminations on the Bay of Pigs. “The Cuban ‘Episode’ and the American Press April 9-23, 1961” was, again, more exercised by the ambiguity of Kennedy’s speech of 20 April to the American Newspaper Editors than the CIA’s all together murkier role, a murkiness acknowledged, but not explored by Mintz: “The irresponsibility in the Cuban affair appears in the encouragement the CIA gave (perhaps manufactured?) concerning the uprisings that would occur. From recent post-mortem reports, it appears that the CIA was more eager to invade than were the exiled leaders” (p.5).

The strongest attack on the CIA in the pages of TMO in the course of 1961 appeared in its August edition – and that was, in effect, borrowed criticism, confined to one, effectively sacked, man. In F.W. Jaeger’s “Nazism: Resurrected or Continued?,” pp.6-7, three paragraphs were devoted to a pamphlet published in the London in January 1961: A Study of a Master Spy: Allen Dulles (Housmans), jointly authored by the Labour MP Bob Edwards and Kenneth Dunne, charted Dulles’ anti-semitism, subversion of the agreed Allied policy of unconditional surrender, and manifestly tender feelings towards the ostensible Nazi enemy (no surprise here, given his pre-war work for Germany’s corporate sponsors of Hitler). But even this piece did not represent a rupture with the general anti-Kennedy line.

In its October edition, editor Arnoni, in the course of “Who Won the War?,” insisted that the President had embraced nothing less than “the adernauerized formula for American prosperity” (p.2) – manufactured crises leading to “more arms and more soldiers” (ditto). In December, Arnoni returned to the theme: “President Kennedy seems to be more eager to learn from Adenauer than Adenauer is to teach him” (“Scouting for Trouble,” December 1961, p.1).

In the same October edition, on the page facing Arnoni’s curious attack on Kennedy’s reforms of the CIA, contributor Friedrich J. Jaeger mocked Kennedy’s 24 August repudiation of East German charges of subversive activity in Berlin – “the legitimate activities of free men in West Berlin” – by offering a brief overview and summary of US intelligence activities against East Germany since the late 1940s. He concluded thus: “There is nothing new about the facts recounted above. They are known to everyone acquainted with the Berlin situation. They certainly are well known to President Kennedy. His definitions of the provocations in Berlin as “the legitimate activities of free men” is an attempt to coerce the Soviets to concede, on pain of war, that facts are not facts, and moreover, to submit to ever more hostile provocations” (p.3). You get the picture: The real war-monger is in the White House; and, by inference, the CIA is a loyal presidential tool. One sees at once the origins of the Chomskeyian imposture.

To be continued.
Paul Rigby Wrote:The dark game of M.S. Arnoni and The Minority of One

John J. Miller, “InDigestible: The decline of a great magazine,” The National Review, 11 February 2002:

Let me begin with a proposition. Between January 1961 and December 1963, someone who read only the New York Times would have been better informed about President Kennedy’s attitudes, policies and domestic opposition – most notably and catastrophically, from the CIA - than someone who read, in the same period, only M.S. Arnoni’s The Minority of One (TMO). Absurd? Far from it, as we shall see.

To be continued.

In the same post-Bay of Pigs period, by contrast, readers of the NYT learned, in late April 1961, courtesy of the ordinarily pro-Agency James Reston (1), that the White House believed “that the CIA has gone beyond the bounds of an objective intelligence-gathering agency and has become the advocate of men and policies that have embarrassed the Administration” (2). In the same piece, Reston noted the Agency’s contacts with the leaders of the military putsch against De Gaulle, and set out White House intentions to strip CIA of long-cherished powers (and invest them in the Pentagon). Later, in November 1961, Reston revealed that Chester Bowles had spent much time in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs travelling the globe in an attempt to enforce Kennedy’s insistence on the primacy of the diplomats over the spooks in the US’s overseas missions (3).

Nothing written in the TMO between January 1961 and December 1963 comes remotely as close to explaining the reasons for the coup d’etat in Dallas in November 1963.

Quote:(1) See, for example, Reston’s admiring estimation of Allen Dulles’ (and CIA’s) endeavours in overthrowing Arbenz, “With the Dulles Brothers in Darkest Guatemala,” NYT, 20 June 1954, p.E8.

(2) James Reston, “Pentagon to get some CIA duties,” NYT, 29 April 1961, p.3. On the same theme, see Thomas F. Brady, “Paris Rumors on CIA,” 2 May 1961, p.19.

(3) James Reston, “Shake-up at State,” NYT, 27 November 1961, p.24.

To be continued.
The Minority of One does its bit to shut down any Left enquiry into the CIA’s support for Fidel Castro:

Quote:Of What I Ashamed, November 1960, (Vol II, No 11), p.16:

(Item 10)> OF THE SENATE INTERNAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE for its farcical “investigation” of alleged past State Department support of the Government of Dr. Castro in Cuba.

Such work ensured the field of Cuba analysis was dominated by charlatans like Regis Debray et al. Left-gatekeeping at its purest.
Let me clarify Paul you hereby mean to suggest CIA support for Castro not merely in 57-59 period, which is less controversial, but considerably past 1960....? I remember your arguing this a while back and feeling the need of more argument. I've no doubt you're not in short supply so how about putting petal near metal... you're in the driver's seat!
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Wrote:Let me clarify Paul you hereby mean to suggest CIA support for Castro not merely in 57-59 period, which is less controversial, but considerably past 1960....?

Uncontroversial - nay, self-evident - to thee and thou, Nat, but what about the scriveners in Anglo-American ivory towers? Someone should really have a quite word with the dissertation factories - the game's up.

Nathaniel Heidenheimer Wrote:I remember your arguing this a while back and feeling the need of more argument. I've no doubt you're not in short supply so how about putting petal near metal... you're in the driver's seat!

Well, at the spook-level, which is really theatre at its most murderous, illusory, and pornographic, what we see is, for want of a more felicitous characterization, controlled reciprocal penetration (CRP). It's controlled because one side, Langley, ultimately moves the major pieces on both sides; but there's promiscuous reciprocal penetration lower down the food chain to ensure that a tight rein is established & maintained on Langley's assets. This is not merely irony in action, but a question of efficiency: Getting the other side to do your work for you is simply shrewd business. Loose cannons do exist and must be prevented from firing ordnance where they shouldn't.

The purpose of CRP is to ensure the hemispheric pretext reminds in place, and rigidly channeled in the directions intended. It provides nourishing myths of derring-do, splendid narratives of heroism and betrayal (much utilised by the CIA in the Kennedy years), and changes...nothing.

This is unquestionably a key motive for the role of Arnoni, Chomksy et al in their obsessive war of lies against John F. Kennedy:

Quote:John F. Kennedy’s direct diplomatic pressures for U.S. inspections of Israel’s Dimona reactor grew throughout 1962-1963. During a Dec. 27, 1963, meeting with Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Kennedy expressed his hope that the relationship was a “two-way street.” Meir reassured President Kennedy that there “would not be any difficulty between us on the Israeli nuclear reactor.” Kennedy delivered a final ultimatum to Israel on July 5, 1963, insisting that Dimona undergo serial inspections “in accord with international standards” in order to verify its “peaceful intent.” Simultaneously, the Kennedy Justice Department was waging an intense battle behind closed doors to register and regulate Israel’s elite U.S. lobby, the American Zionist Council, which was bringing in funds from overseas to lobby. Kennedy’s assassination in November traumatized the nation and led to the complete and permanent reversal of both initiatives.

How US Weapons Grade Uranium was Diverted to Israel

Declassified GAO Report Exposes Fatally Flawed Israel Investigations

By Grant Smith
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

Joseph Fouche
The Minority of One on the assassination of JFK

List of articles, editorials & letters December 1963-November 1968

December 1963 – Number 49 (Volume 5, No 12)

M.S.Arnoni, “The Assassination,” special one-page editorial insert between pp.12-13 (No entry)

Quote:January 1964 – Number 50 (Volume 6, No 1)

M.S.Arnoni, “Who Killed Whom and Why,” pp.1, 12-13

Eric Norden, “The Death of a President,” pp.16-23

“From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.30: David B. Lord; Mrs. Alice G. Harris; Silas Walter Adams; & A.B.Billing.

February 1964 – Number 51 (Volume 6, No 2)

M.S.Arnoni, “Redemption through Accession,” p.4

M.S.Arnoni, “Two Widows,” pp.4-5

Bertrand Russell, “From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.22

March 1964 – Number 52 (Volume 6, No 3)

M.S.Arnoni, “Mr. Warren’s Prerogative,” p.2

“From Readers’ Letters: ‘Death of a President,’” p.22: G.A.Campbell; Frank Fodor; Harold Silverman; Robert S. Lynd; and Mrs. Betty Sobel.

April 1964 – Number 53 (Volume 6, No 4)

M.S.Arnoni, “An Open Letter to Chief Justice Earl Warren,” pp.1-2
First appeared as a paid advertisement in the NYT of 2 March 1964

M.S.Arnoni, “The Investigation,” p.4

“From Readers’ Letters: Comments on TMO’s Open Letter to Chief Justice Earl Warren,” pp.22-24: Thomas F. Stanton; Schuyler Van Rensslaer; Mortimer May; Joseph Deretchin; Richard Stephen Abrams; Zenida St. George; H. Hilton; Mrs. Jindra Barkin; Arlene Carmen; William L. Patterson; Paul Fisher; David R. Collens; Charles P. Forbes; Franklin L. Werner; Ruth E. Bassin; and Maxwell Geismar.

May 1964 – Number 54 (Volume 6, No 5)

M.S.Arnoni, “A Verdict or Propaganda?,” pp.4-5

“From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.22: C.K. Stedman; Alice Herz; Leon E. Walters; Bert Fowler; Dr. Ralph Holloway; and Howard E. Marston.

June 1964 – Number 55 (Volume 6, No 6)

M.S.Arnoni, “Ripe for the Report,” p.5

Robert E. Feir, “From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.30

Bernard E. Galitz, “From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.30

July 1964 – Number 56 (Volume 6, No 7)

M.S.Arnoni, “Awaiting the Report,” pp.4-5

Victor Harvey, “From Readers’ Letters: World Press on the Assassination,” p.23

September 1964 – Number 58 (Volume 6, No 9)

M.S.Arnoni, “How Strong is the Junta?,” pp.1, 11-15

Bertrand Russell, “16 Questions on the Assassination,” pp.6-8

October 1964 – Number 59 (Volume 6, No 10)

Cedric Belfrage, “Four Assassinations: One Pattern,” pp.18-19

November 1964 – Number 60 (Volume 6, No 11)

M.S.Arnoni, “The Report,” pp.2-3

M.S.Arnoni, “A Commentator Fights a Reporter,” p.5

Mark Lane, “The Warren Report: A First Glance,” pp.6-8

Harold Feldman & Vincent J. Salandria, “From Readers’ Letters: Considine’s Story,” p.22

James Silver, “From Readers’ Letters: Tippit’s ‘Invitation,’” p.22

December 1964 – Number 61 (Volume 6, No 12)

Mrs. J.M.Thompson, “From Readers’ Letters: Warren Commission’s Real Assignment,” p.42

A Physicist, “From Readers’ Letters: The Impossible Trajectory,” p.42

Herry E. Beller, “From Readers’ Letters: Stone’s Day of Atonement,” p.43

February 1965 – Number 63 (Volume 7, No 2)

J.R.Keisler, “From Readers’ Letters: An Assassin’s Motive,” p.22

Bernard Edwin Galitz, “From Readers’ Letters: The ‘Unfact’ of the Assassination,” p.22

March 1965 – Number 64 (Volume 7, No 3)

Harold Feldman, “Fifty-one Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” pp.16-25

Lillian Castellano, “From Readers’ Letters: Oswald Censored,” p.30

April 1965 – Number 65 (Volume 7, No 4)

Mark Lane, “Who is Jack Ruby?,” pp.8-11

May 1965 – Number 66 (Volume 7, No 5)

Sylvia Meagher, “Readers’ Letters: Oswald – a Patsy?,” p.31

November 1965 – Number 72 (Volume 7, No 11)

Thomas C. Fiddick, “What Ruby Did Not Tell,” pp.15-16

February 1966 – Number 75 (Volume 8, No 2)

T. Gurney, “From Readers’ Letters: Cause-and-effect,” p.29

March 1966 – Number 76 (Volume 8, No 3)

M.S.Arnoni, “Dallas Revisited,” pp.5-6

Victor J. Salandria, “The Impossible Task of One Assassination Bullet,” pp.12-18

April 1966 – Number 77 (Volume 8, No 4)

Victor J. Salandria, “The Separate Connally Shot,” pp.9-13

May 1966 – Number 78 (Volume 8, No 5)

Wm. S. Chichester, “From Readers’ Letters: Assassination Studies,” p.31

Mrs. Gene Birch, “From Readers’ Letters: Assassination Studies,” p.31

June 1966 – Number 79 (Volume 8, No 6)

Sylvia Meagher, “A Psychiatrist’s Retroactive ‘Clairvoyance,’” pp.25-27

Marguerite C. Oswald, “From Readers’ Letters: The Warren Report,” p.29

H.L.Hummel, “From Readers’ Letters: The Warren Report,” p.29

J.R.Keisler, “From Readers’ Letters: The Warren Report,” p.29

July-August 1966 – Number 80-81 (Volume 8, No 7-8)

M.S.Arnoni, “The Relevance of an Inquest,” pp.8-9

Sylvia Meagher, “On ‘Closing Doors, Not Opening Them’ or The Limits of the Warren Investigation,” pp.29-32

September 1966 – Number 82 (Volume 8, No 9)

M.S.Arnoni, “Between Two Assassinations,” p.6

Sylvia Meagher, “How Well Did the ‘Non-Driver’ Oswald Drive?,” pp.19-21

Maggie Field, “From Readers’ Letters: Research on the Assassination,” pp.38-39

October 1966 – Number 83 (Volume 8, No 10)

Sylvia Meagher, “Oswald and the State Department,” pp.22-27

Stephen Barber (Sunday Telegraph, London), “Kennedy Assassination,” p.32

December 1966 – Number 85 (Volume 8, No 12)

Harold Feldman, “The Johnson Murder Charge,” pp.21-22

January 1967 – Number 86 (Volume 9, No 1)

M.S.Arnoni, “A Dead Brother is No Brother,” p.

E. Martin Schotz, Susan Schotz, Robert Flynn, Jane Flynn, Steven Kuromiya, Gerald Herdman, Julia Hodges, Carol Goldstein, “From Readers’ Letters: Who Killed Kennedy?,” pp.30-31

J.B. Gibson, “Governor Connally and Assassination Inquiry,” p.31

February 1967 – Number 87 (Volume 9, No 2)

M.S.Arnoni, “Any Road That Leads to the White House (A tragicomic play in many acts by Robert F. Kennedy),” p.7

M.S.Arnoni, “Jack Ruby Cheats History,” p.8

D. Howard Ady, “From Readers’ Letters: Who Really Killed Kennedy – And Why?,” p.29

Margaret Juliano, “From Readers’ Letters: Robert Kennedy’s Intention,” p.30

March 1967 – Number 88 (Volume 9, No 3)

Sylvia Meagher, “Post-Assassination Credibility Chasm,” pp.21-22

April 1967 – Number 89 (Volume 9, No 4)

M.S.Arnoni, “An Assassination’s Retroactivity,” p.9

Lesley Woolf Hedley, “MacBird Flies Low,” p.26

Bernard Edwin Galitz, “From Readers’ Letters: Warren Skeptics Vindicated,” pp.28-29

Edward Schindeler, “From Readers’ Letters: The Kennedy Ethos,” p.29

Arnold S. Daniels, “From Readers’ Letters: Who Said That Jack Ruby Said?,” pp.29-30

May 1967 – Number 90 (Volume 9, No 5)

Mrs. Lee Dresh, “From Readers’ Letters: LBJ’s Supporters,” p.29

June 1967 – Number 91 (Volume 9, No 6)

Sylvia Meagher, “After the Battle, the Book,” pp.25-27

September 1967 – Number 94 (Volume 9, No 9)

Sylvia Meagher, “From Readers’ Letters: BR and TMO,” p.31

October 1967 – Number 95 (Volume 9, No 10)

M.S.Arnoni, “Garrison and Warren: Anything in Common?,” pp.11-12

November 1967 – Number 96 (Volume 9, No 11)

Jim Garrison, “From Readers’ Letters: Jim Garrison Knows Himself to be Right,” pp.22-23

December 1967 – Number 97 (Volume 9, No 12)

Connor Cruise O’Brien, “Veto by Assassination?,” pp.16-18

Harold Feldman, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.29

Maggie Field, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.29

Sylvia Meagher, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.29

Penn Jones, Jr., “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” pp.29-30

Leo Sauvage, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.30

Quote:March 1968 – Number 100 (Volume 10, No 3)

Ruth Jacobs, “From Readers’ Letters: Why Kennedy Went to Texas,” p.31

June 1968 – Number 103 (Volume 10, No 6)

Sylvia Meagher, “Two Assassinations,” pp.9-10

July-August 1968 – Number 104/5 (Volume 10, No 7-8)

Sylvia Meagher, “Wheels within Deals: How the Kennedy Investigation was Organised,” pp.23-27

Sylvia Meagher, “From Readers’ Letters: A Garrison Victim,” p.30

September 1968 – Number 106 (Volume 10, No 9)

M.S.Arnoni, “Of Demonologists and Eunuchs,” pp.8-9

Sylvia Meagher, “Three Assassinations,” pp.13-16

Connor Cruise O’Brien, “How Many Conspiracies?,” p.16

November 1968 – Number 108 (Volume 10, No 11)

Alfred John Ferrari, “Kennedy Assassinations and Political Detours,” pp.7-9

Griscom Morgan, “From Readers’ Letters: Between Two Kennedy Assassinations,” p.22
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

Joseph Fouche
Yet this publication featured several of the real critics, as well.
I remember reading about Vince Salandria and this mag decades ago.
I just copied and pasted this from " Praise From a Future Generation" (John Kelin)- another must have book for any one who is serious about the assassination of JFK.
Vincent J. Salandria wrote one of the earliest critiques of the Warren Commission's published data, an article appearing in The Legal-Intelligencer, Philadelphia's daily law journal, in 1964.
Salandria was convinced early on that there was much more to the assassination than was reported in the press. "Dealey Plaza," he said, "reeked of conspiracy."
In the summer of 1964, he went to Dallas with his then-brother-in-law Harold Feldman, and Feldman's wife Immie (see above). Among the witnesses they interviewed was Helen Markham, the Warren Commission's star witness in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. They came away convinced that Markham had been intimidated into giving testimony that conformed to the Warren Commission's lone gunman thesis.
Salandria later published incisive articles in Liberation and The Minority of One. He served in an advisory capacity to Jim Garrison during the New Orleans' DA's investigation into the Kennedy assassination.


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The "Dark Matter" operation that sent Oswald to Russia Alan Denholm 7 4,316 14-03-2015, 04:26 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Dark Complected Man is Virgilio Gonzalez T Harry Evans 7 6,678 02-09-2014, 12:56 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Oswald's Game Eviscerated at CTKA Jim DiEugenio 20 9,077 26-08-2014, 10:43 PM
Last Post: Joseph McBride
  Joan Mellen: The Great Game In Cuba Alan Dale 0 5,147 25-11-2013, 02:35 PM
Last Post: Alan Dale
  Gassy Knoll: Dark Forces Silencing JFK Conspiracy Folk - Page 1 - News - Dallas - Dallas Observer Bernice Moore 0 2,313 05-12-2011, 02:32 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Man in the Dark Sports Coat Bernice Moore 0 2,193 28-06-2011, 12:39 AM
Last Post: Bernice Moore

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)