Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lifton on DiEugenio on JFK offering the Vice Presidential nomination to LBJ . . .
#61
No, it was not any unadulterated Portuguese dish.

It was stuff supplied by the Portuguese SIS to a restaurant I frequented in Caldas da Rainha after I complained bitterly to President Clinton, his Attorney General Janet Reno et al. about his cozing up to former President Nixon, Al 'Deep Throat' Haig, and former DCI Richard Helms in the White House after the Justice Department had failed to prove in time that my attacks on 'Tricky' Dick were maliciously motivated.

The officials behind the plot to kill me were Clinton Chief of Staff and current DCI Leon Panetta, former DCI George Tenet, former American Ambassador to Portugal Eliazebth Frawley Bagley, CIA resident in Lisbon Michael Thomas et. al.

Oh yes, and Jim D did his bit by propagating Jim Marrs' lies that he had talked to me about the FBI memo, linking RMN to Jack Ruby, claiming that I knew it was false, but just wanted to get him - what Jim D made into my murder warrant with his introduction of those articles to rehabilitate RMN in that special issue of Probe magazine in January 1996.

I can provide all kinds of communications to the officials who tried to kill me, and two articles I have written about the experience if you want to know the facts.
Reply
#62
Trowbridge,

All sarcasm and cruelty aside.

I have no way of knowing whether or not attempts on your life were made by the individuals you cite or anyone else.

I want to be respectful here: While I'm willing to stipulate that your articles are sincere, the fact is that they are also, by definition, prejudiced. And appropriately so. But what they would not be is persuasive.

That being noted, I am not going to attempt to evaluate or otherwise characterize your claims.

All I have are my opinions -- as opposed to judgements -- and this situation is far too serious to be reduced to underinformed Internet squabbling.

Be good to yourself. And please consider ... just consider ... taking a break from action at the front. You've earned a bit of R&R.

Charles
Reply
#63
If anyone wants my views about Lee, try "Jesse Curry's JFK Assassination File: Could Oswald have been convicted?", MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), or, more simply, via the internet, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK?", where the key points are made in the first few pages, at http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconferenc...pter30.pdf

Trowbridge H. Ford Wrote:Just incredible stuff from two posters who I know all too well - Jim D and Jim F.

Jim F wrote in the copy of Assassination Science that he sent me that if LHO was sipping a Coke in the TSBD's refreshment room when JFK was being assassinated, he couldn't have been a shooter in the assassination, though Jim F ultimately was so confident that he had scapegoat Oswald that he had the temerity to print a portion of the Altgens' photograph of the scene with a closeup of what one of the bullet fragments had done to the Presidential limo windshield with LHO standing in the background at the TSBD entrance!

And Jim D, are you still happy with the special edition of Probe magazine in January 1996 where you claimed that I was the agent, with J. David Truby's assistance, behind Nixon's undoing as President - what was to explain away the Agency's attempt, with the help of the Portugese SIS, to kill me by minute portions of ricin, it seems?

At the time Ja magazine was putting together a put-down of my claims about the Dallas assassintaion which highlighted Harvey's role, and was published in June, hoping my death would look like some kind of suicide, accident or stroke.

One really needs a covert program to know really who are the good guys, and who are the bad.
Reply
#64
Same old Trowbridge. As I can see from your silly article.

The information in Probe was from Eddie Tatro. And also from Jim Marrs.

Your beef is with them, especially Jim Marrs.

Because when I called him on this issue, know what he did?

He went back to his files, and retrieved his notebooks on this. He had the notes from the interview he did with you to back up what he said you said. Sorry, but that is the way journalism is done. If you have the written back up, you have it.

You can argue with Jim and say he made it up after or something. But 1.) Jim Marrs does not seem to me to be that kind of guy. I mean I know him fairly well. 2.) Why would he do that anyway?

But either way, you should be talking to and about him, not me. He should not be a problem to get in contact with. He has a web site.
Reply
#65
In the study of historical events of this magnitude, we are attempting to explain how and why they occurred in their particularity as unique incidents in history. So I certainly agree with Charles that Lyndon was the pivotal player without whom it would not have occurred as it actually did occur! So perhaps we are bridging the divide between us. A new book has just appeared, which I was going to add to the "mastermind" thread, but I think it has been closed and, in any case, cannot at the moment find it. I have not read it yet, but it looks very interesting and I am sure many will want to read it. So I suppose it fits here, namely:

LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy: A Coalescence of Interests
(2011)

Joseph P. Farrell

http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Conspiracy-Kil...870&sr=1-2

Product Description

Best-selling, Oxford-educated investigative author Joseph P. Farrell takes on the Kennedy assassination and the involvement of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Texas "machine" that he controlled. Farrell says that a coalescence of interests in the military industrial complex, the CIA, and Lyndon Baines Johnson's powerful and corrupt political machine in Texas led to the event culminating in the assassination. Without the help of the Dallas police chief and others of the Texas underworld, including Jack Ruby, the Kennedy assassination could not have taken place. Farrell analyzes the data as only he can, and comes to some astonishing conclusions. Topics include: Oswald, the FBI, and the CIA: Hoover's Concern of a Second Oswald; Oswald and the Anti-Castro Cubans; The Mafia; Hoover, Johnson, and the Mob; The FBI, the Secret Service, Hoover, and Johnson; The CIA and "Murder Incorporated"; Ruby's Bizarre Behavior; The French Connection and Permindex; Big Oil; The Military; Disturbing Datasets, Doppelgängers, Duplicates and Discrepancies; Two Caskets, Two (or was that Three?) Ambulances, One Body: The Case of David S. Lifton; Two (or is that Three?) Faces of Oswald; Too Many (or Was That Too Few?) Bullets; Too Many Films, with Too Many, or Too Few, Frames; The Dead Witnesses: Jack Zangretti, Maurice Brooks Gatlin, John Garret "Gary" Underhill, Guy F. Bannister, Jr., Mary Pinchot Meyer, Rose Cheramie, Dorothy Mae Killgallen, Congressman Hale Boggs; The Alchemy of the Assassination: Ritual Magic and Murder, Masonic Symbolism, and the Darkest Players in the Death of JFK; LBJ and the Planning of the Texas Trip; LBJ: A Study in Character, Connections, and Cabals; LBJ and the Aftermath: Accessory After the Fact; The Requirements of Coups D'État; more.

See all Editorial Reviews
Product Details
  • Paperback: 344 pages
  • Publisher: Adventures Unlimited Press (March 1, 2011)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1935487183
  • ISBN-13: 978-1935487180
  • Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1 inches
Charles Drago Wrote:"Lyndon was the pivotal player without whom it would not have occurred ... "

... as it occurred.
Reply
#66
Oh really Jim?

And what if there had been no Mexico City? What would have been used to intimidate Warren into taking a job he did not want?

And what if RFK had not sat it out?

What if Rankin had not been the chief consul and Olney had? What role did LBJ play in dumping Olney? (McKnight, pgs. 41-42)

And if the WC was all a Johnson set up, then why did he have to be ramrodded into setting it up by Rostow and Alsop--against his will kicking and screaming. Which is proven by the transcripts in Don Gibson's magnificent article in The Assassinations. (p. 3 ff)

The WC cover up was executed by three men--McCloy, Dulles, and Ford. The other three--Boggs, Russell, Cooper--did not agree with them. Period. What is in the declassified record that shows those three men interacting with LBJ about the cover up they are enacting? I can find nothing. And recall, it was Alsop and Rostow who forced LBJ to set this thing up anyway. In other words, the actual cover up artists appear to work separate from LBJ in a official body Johnson never wanted created. The White House came under siege right after Oswald was killed by Rostow, Alsop and a third unnamed person. THey were determined to get LBJ on board with their contingency plan. If LBJ had been in on it from the start, why did he have to be brow-beaten into appointing the Warren Commission?

One last point: If Olney had been appointed, it really may have been different. Why? Because in studying the structure of the Commission--which clearly you have not done--Rankin took his orders from the Troika named above. (See part 8 of my Bugliosi series.) Much to the chagrin of the junior counsel, who--in a little known fact--did not buy Brennan, Marina Oswald, and Markham. Olney was an independent guy who did not like Hoover. So he would have taken his orders from no one. And without those three witnesses....?

Maybe, maybe not.
Reply
#67
Same old schemer Jim D, as this is the article he is referring to, and which appeared on codshit.com in April 2004:

More Confessions about America's Plot to Kill Me
by
Trowbridge H. Ford

While doing political research as an academic, I always sought evidence which was most immediate and apparently fair about whatever I was interested in. This usually meant looking for reliable newspapers which had direct reports about the matter in question rather than government records of major states or private papers of important individuals.

As Western powers have become developed states, their bureaucracies have become increasingly politicized, making their reports often censored versions of what really happened. Personal accounts of events, unless they are those by a player directly involved, are generally little more than hearsay evidence by those who have some point to make, or axe to grind, often long after they actually occurred. Memory too can play tricks on individuals when they try to recall what really happened.

Of course, newspapers, especially current ones, are not immune to such distorting tendencies, but they are still the best sources we have.

A good example of the kinds of things I am talking about surfaced when I started writing a two-volume biography of British barrister Henry Brougham (1778-1868). Brougham, because of his independent ways as an advocate and politician, was highly ridiculed in newspapers of the day, and letters by associates. William Hazlitt, the famous English essasyist, dismissed Brougham's efforts as those of a most self-serving hack who would do anything to get his way.The strength of Hazlitt's dismissal was well illustrated when I was once asked by Sir Geoffrey Elton, the famous Tudor historian, what I was doing, and when I explained to him the scope of the project, he responded curtly: "I would have thought one volume would have been more than enough, and a thin one at that."

The conversation took place while I was pouring over the columns of The Times in one of the reading rooms of the Institute of Historical Research in London, looking for accounts of Brougham's efforts in the courts, and Parliament during the early years of the 19th century. This was when Thomas Barnes was taking over editorial control of the newspaper from its proprietor, making it the envy of the earth. The Times was also another bete noir of Hazlitt who claimed that it was just another London rag.

For a more accurate picture of the paper and the politician, a better mix of fact and fiction, I would recommend viewers read the novels by Anthony Trollope, especially The Warden.

My research convinced me that there was far more to the politician and the paper than their critics, especially the witty Hazlitt, were contending. In the process, I also learned that Hazlitt was closely related to Dr. John Stoddart aka 'Dr. Slop', the former editor of The Times who was fired because of his reactionary interests. Stoddart then formed the New Times to combat Barnes's rising interest in reform, and became a leading light in the Constitutional Association, a most repressive organization to stop it. In sum, Hazlitt had real axes to grind, and his pithy claims should not be taken as fact, just interesting essays to be read for enjoyment.

While I was learning this, I failed to appreciate how all these considerations could be drastically changed if some bystander or researcher because of their claims became the focus of something quite different, eventually even sinister. Here I am referring to efforts by America's secret government, first to see to the repudiation of my theories about the assassination of JFK, especially the roles of CIA, Nixon, and his last Chief of Staff, General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., and when this effort unexpectedly failed, to see to my actual elimination. In the process, I learned the importance of having good files to correct one's questionable memory.

In my last confessions, I tried to describe the trouble caused by a fraudulent FBI memo, claiming that Jack Ruby should be given special consideration by the Bureau because of the work he was performing in the late 1940s for California Representative Richard M. Nixon on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) - what college professor J. David Truby had been given by a member of the Nixon Justice Department in 1974, and was circulating in order to justify the publishing of an article about it in The National Tattler.

The article was intended to corroborate many claims that I had been making about the President, but when I learned about the role of the memo in its proposed publication, I threatened Truby with a libel action if he went ahead. In the end, the tabloid printed a story in its June 1975 issue which satisfied neither Truby nor me, though I declined to sue it because I thought, given clarifications that The Writer's Digest had provided about the dispute in January 1976, any action would only help the culprits who assassinated JFK by mudding the waters further about the whole process.

When I left America permanently in November 1989, I thought that the whole dispute had long been settled, and clarified. Little did I know that Jim Marrs, the well-known researcher of the Dallas assassination. would claim then in Crossfire that I, after examining thousands of similar Bureau documents, had changed my mind about the Ruby memo, deciding that it was, in fact, genuine. Of course, I, living in the wilds of central Portugal with few contacts with the outside world, had no idea that he had written such outrageous claims, and I would have threatened him with a libel action if I had.

I only learned of Marrs's claim another 13 years later, and only through correspondence with Jim DiEugenio, editor of the former web site magazine Probe. This was after I had finally decided to move to Sweden because of my growing difficulties, especially with my health. I ultimately came to the conclusion that someone - apparently elements in America's secret government - was trying to kill me by poison, and I better seek a new venue if I hoped to survive much longer. It was outside Stockholm, when I finally went on the internet with my new computer, that I learned that DiEugenio had further trashed my work by claiming in a special issue of the magazine in Jan.-Feb. 1996 that I, a former intelligence officer, had deliberately used the fraudulent memo to help remove Nixon from office.

The point DiEugenio was making against me was not just an incidental one, but the basis of the whole special issue, as he explained in an introductory note, "From the Chairman's Desk," after the appearance of Oliver Stone's movie "Nixon" - what was intended to portray the former President in a better light: "And if that means defending people one don't like, so be it. If it helps return democaracy to America, we can call a temporary truce with Dick Nixon."

In explaining the origin of the temporary truce, DiEugenio said this about my efforts: "How bad did things get in those days. When the impeachment process was in gear in 1974, a college professor named Trowbridge Ford, with help from jouranlist David Truby surfaced a memo saying that Nixon had helped Jack Ruby get out of a jam with the HUAC. Paul Hoch ably revealed this document to be a forgery. But as Ed Tatro said, the real significance was that it showed someone was out to get Nixon and both Ford and Truby had intelligence connections."

I was never out to get anyone - though I would have pursued even my own mother if she had been part of the Dallas conspiracy - and had no role in either surfacing or circulating the memo. And I let DiEugenio know in no uncertain terms, and as soon as I could. When I finally got through his associate Lisa Pease to DiEugenio on October 16, 2003, he replied tersely:

My name is Jim DiEugenio. I wrote the three sentences you are complaining about. I got this information from Edgar Tatro, a researcher from Boston.

Are you denying you ever circulated the Ruby-Nixon memo?
If you are so doing, have you forwarded letters to the others involved denying this and showing that people like Paul Hoch and Mr. Tatro have falsely accused you of this decades ago? If you have, please show me such documentation because when I called them when I wrote those words they never told me you had.

I assume you are not denying that the memo was a forgery or that you knew Mr. Truby.

JIM DIEUGENIO

After I replied the next day, trying to clarify matters on the basis of the two articles which had appeared in The Writer's Digest, DiEugenio continued in the same vein:

Mr. Ford:

I just picked up Jim Marrs trade paper edition of Crossfire. On pages 269-270, you are quoted directly. I quote in part:

"By the early 1980's, Ford told this author he had studied literally thousands of genuine FBI documents and had slowly come to the conclusion that the Nixon-Ruby memo was probably legitimate."

Mr. Ford, not only did you circulate this thing originally, but even after you knew it was phoney, you told an author of a bestselling book that it was probably not.

Please show me your letter to Marrs retracting this statement at the time the book was issued. If not, please drop the subject. There is nothing in the original citation that damages you in any way or is false. The Marrs citation show that it was correct.

JIM DIEUGENIO

Of course, I responded immediately, stating that there was nothing true in his e-mail, even the claim of a direct quotation in Marrs from me, and explaining that no one can deny false claims one doesn't know about, especially if they issued in a way least likely to promote discovery. (For example, I never wrote to other researchers into the JFK assassination that I was not part of the plot for fear that they might still, somehow suspect so.) DiEugenio then relented on October 21st, stating that he would raise the matter with Marrs, and asking me to fax copies of the articles about the memo in The Writer's Digest.

While I planned to do so, I don't have a fax, and before I could go out to one, I seriously injured my left foot, making any kind of trip like that out of the question. Then my computer immediately developed a deadly virus, making any e-mail or snail mail to him impossible because all his addresses were in my computer's memory. When I and my computer were finally up, and around, I sent him an e-mail on November 10th, explaining the delay, and telling him he could find The Writer's Digest in any good-size library. When I didn't hear anything more from DiEugenio, I even wrote an e-mail about my complaints to Marrs on December 6th, asking DiEugenio to forward it to him.

After three months had passed without any reply from either DiEugenio or Marrs, I e-mailed the former to tell him that my last confessions article had appeared on this site, and that I would be writing this one unless I received an adequate explanation, or compensation from him within four weeks. When the deadline passed without any response, I wrote again about the action I would take, and received this reply from DiEugenio:

Thanks for sending me this. I will keep it as proof of your nuttiness, fabricating, and libelous intent. SO when anybody writes me about your goofy article, well what do you expect.

BTW (Better Take Warning?), Marrs has notes about this interview with you for his book that you say never happened.

JIM D

The e-mails ended with a bitter exchange of claims and counterclaims about fabrications, facts,
and failures.

Hardly had they stopped than Ed Tatro e-mailed me, professing that he had never had any relationship with the Agency, and while he could well understand what DiEugenio had put in his Chairman's Letter about me had been deeply upsetting, he declined all responsibility for it, claiming that Probe had completely distorted what he said. Tatro wanted me to retract what I had said about him. He was just a hard-pressed high school teacher who was trying to enlighten his students about some of America's darkest moments despite avoidance of the subject in standard textbooks.

Of course, I responded in the fashion already indicated, but his timing, and the rigmarole he went through to get in touch with me left much to be desired. I cannot help but think that he was tipped off by DiEugenio about what I was doing, hoping to gain some kind of helpful clarification in this article. Also, he used a different web site, lindqvist. com, to get in touch with me, claiming he did not know how to do otherwise. Of course, codshit.com published my e-mail address on many occasions, and he had the opportunity to deny my claims right on the web site. Unfortunately, for him, any reply would have been right under my e-mail, quoting his effort from Probe magazine - obviously an environment which would not have been promotive of his aims.

Tatro's claims about being a high school teacher suddenly refreshed my memory about my life in Portugal - what I had forgotten about when I wrote the earlier article. While I searched my files in researching it, finding only a few items on my old computer relevant to the project - what forced me to rely heavily upon my own memory - I had forgotten that I had written many letters on an electric typewritter before I purchased a computer, and copies of the letters had to be somewhere. I finally found them in an envelope another high school teacher had provided me in dealing with his students, and I had used it to store copies of the letters I wrote on the typewriter.

They were a revelation about why Marrs et al. had gone to such lengths to distort my research - they were building a case in my absence about my libelous intent against Nixon and his associates. In American law, it is almost impossible for a public figure like the former President, General Haig, and former DCI Richard Helms to win a libel case without showing that the alleged libeler did so, knowing that his claims were untrue - what Marrs apparently has in his notes of an alleged interview with me. According to him, I maintained that the Nixon-Ruby memo was legitimate after a most thorough search; yet, I still confided to Marrs that I knew it to be phony all along.

To make sure that they had an open-and-shut case against me, Randall Lynn, a history teacher at Douglas County High School in a suburb of Altanta, Georgia, wrote me a letter, apparently in January 1993 though it is undated, asking if I would help some of his best students investigate further questions about the JFK assassination, an event which had changed his life. If I agreed, he twice assured me that none of my help would be published or aired without my approval. He said nothing, though, about using it in any possible intelligence operation, or in a libel action by aggrieved individuals.

On March 11, 1993, I wrote to one student, outlining the conspiracy which murdered JFK - what I have elaborated upon in my earlier artciles on Helms, William King Harvey, Peter Wright, Alexander Haig, and Anatoliy Golitsyn. The letter concentrated upon the operations that Jack Ruby was integrating - the actual Mafia assassination plot (Operation Cleopatra), the set up of Lee Harvey Oswald and other decoys at Fidel Castro's expense (Operation Little Egypt); and the threats to the President by various criminal associates to break down JFK's security as he visited key cities, especially Miami and New York (Operation Twist Board).

I stressed how Nixon had brought everything together by standing up to recorded threats, apparently by Oswald, by attending the Bottlers' Convention at Market Hall on Nov. 21st, right across from the Trade Mart where JFK would be giving his speech the next day, as Pepsi-Cola's chief counsel, and then giving a press conference denying claims that there had been any official concern about his safety - what The Dallas Morning News empasized with its "Guard Not For Nixon" story on its front page on the fatal day. Instead of following false leads in Jim Garrison's investigation, I urged her to look into Watergate for more culprits, and evidence of the conspiracy.

Then the students asked me for more information about why I did not agree with Garrison's claims, especially about Clay Shaw's role, how Oswald had been set up as a "patsy", and who had killed Officer J. D. Tippitt and why. Before I had even had time to answer them, I received a most effusive letter from Lynn: "Your input has been been invaluable, and you join such figures as Dr. Cyril Wecht, Gaeton Fonzi, Mary Ferrell, Jack White, Jim Marrs, and Anthony Summers in giving so generously of your knowledge so that teenagers - so often ignored by the research community - may learn more about this pivotal event in our history." He asked for more information about names I had mentioned, and he had never heard of. He expressed the hope that the relationship could be ongoing, as there would be other students coming along with questions they wanted answered.

A week later, I wrote a four-page, single-spaced letter, trying to answer his queries and theirs. Without troubling viewers with all the detail, the most important information from the point of view of this article concerned Nixon, and none of it had anything to do with the false memo - e.g., Nixon and Dallas Representative Bruce Alger receving threatening post cards from someone thought to be a "possible, dangerous social deviant" from Dallas, Fort Worth, and Irving, Texas, locations known for their connections with Oswald; why would the former Vice President then go to Dallas to stand up to such threats, and publicise his apparent recklessness unless he was attempting to set the President up under controlled conditions - what he had learned from actress and Pepsi president Joan Crawford that JFK was tempted to do himself; why would President Clinton seek advice from Nixon when he had treated his Democratic predecessor so treacherously; etc.

Instead of hearing further from Lynn, I got an unexpected letter from Ms. Jennifer Caplan of Milledgeville, Ga., though it took nearly a year for it to arrive in Portugal. By this time, I had had it out with Lynn - what was prompted by writing him on December 10th to complain about his failure to answer my April letter, and to suggest that students write Nixon, Helms, and Haig for information about their role in the JFK assassination for the book I had now decided to write about the Dallas tragedy. Thanks to the handling of the Nixon-Ruby memo, and the controversy it had stirred up, I knew that these people would not answer any questions I put to them, but maybe they would feel obliged if Lynn's students queried them - what could even bring JFK's killers to justice at this late date. A few days later, I wrote to Bureau Director Louis Freeh in the same vein.

Ms. Caplan was apparently an investigator for some justice department, and hoped to gain information which would lead to my prosecution rather than that of Nixon, Helms, and Haig. She asked me about the memo, and obviously hoped that I would supply information along the lines Marrs claimed. I attacked not only the memo, but also how she had gotten interested in it. "By the way," I wrote on July 11, 1994, "do you know Mr. Lynn, and did he suggest that you consult me about your questions?" She, of course, denied everything, admitting only a now useless interest in seeing if the apparent relationship between Nixon and Ruby warranted some kind of criminal prosecution.

I do believe that this scathing letter ended all interest in a libel action against me, but put me on a deadly course with America's secret government. To make matters worse, I had written to President Clinton on April 30, 1994, complaining bitterly of the support the United States provided, and the testaments he gave to Nixon upon his death. I said that it was a slap in the face to those who had worked so hard to see that the felon was removed from office. "In sum," I concluded, "rather than spend good taxpayer money to try to polish up this most terrible President, you should have the Attorney General look into his earlier crimes, or appoint a new commission to determine what really happened to JFK and the country in Dallas. If you want further massive evidence on these matters, I would be happy to oblige. Kennedy's unsolved murder calls for no less"

I even wrote again to Freeh, thrice to Attorney General Janet Reno, and to Ms. Mary Spearing, Chief of the DOJ's General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, after she replied for her boss, but without any action, only being referred to previous unsuccessful investigations of the JFK assasination as if the Justice Department is only some kind of library reference service. All they accomplished apparently was to focus law-enforcement efforts on forcing me back to America where I could be silenced much more easily - what Portuguese emigration officials attempted, but without success when I went to the States a month later.

It was then that America's secret government plotted to kill me, once its new Ambassador to Portugal Elizabeth Frawley Bagley had gotten established in Lisbon. In looking through these misplaced papers, I also found my correspondence with its Vice Consul - who I had contacted on March 24, 1995 over the trouble I was having using the telephone because of suspected taps. He was Michael D. Thomas, not John White, as I had claimed. I had been forced to rely upon my memory, and it had turned up the wrong man - apparently a leading member of the Ulster Defence Asssociation, and close friend of imprisoned Johnny "Mad Dog" Adair - as expected under such circumstances.

Thomas surprisingly answered my questions the same day thus: "After conducting a thorough investigation, I hereby reassure you that, to my knowledge, there is no agency of the United States Government engaged in illegal activities against you." Of course, I took exception to any idea that he could know of any legal actions that America was conducting against me, and this left unanswered the possibility of either Washington or Lisbon conducting illegal operations against me. I was also convinced that his getting my name wrong, calling me "Trumbridge", was just a ruse so that he could get his hands on my passport, and keep it, claiming that I was again living illegally in Portugal.

I have little to add about the campaign that America's secret government carried out then to cause my death, apparently an accident, but actually caused by increasing doses of ricin - what I was fed when I had dinner at Caldas da Rainha's Supatra Restaurant. While the effort to inflict a disastrous libel suit on me had been apparently inspired by Nixon and his former Chief of Staff Haig, the plot to kill me was led by President Clinton, former DCI Helms, and the chief of section in Portugal, Ms. Bagley.

I had actually missed completely the transformation until recently, especially the significance of DiEugenio's Chairman's Letter to the murder plot when it was moving into high gear in early 1996. DiEugenio's was making my murder seem perfectly understandable under the circumstances. Who could feel sorry for an intelligence operator who plotted most foully to bring down President Nixon, being killed by anyone after his dirty scheming had been so tellingly exposed?

The only thing to add about the poisoning is that its effects still appeared after I thought I had escaped to safety in Sweden. My body had enough ricin in it that only a tiny bit more would have finished me off. I never had any more Thai food just to be sure, so that could not have been the cause of the attacks. For the next three years outside of Stockholm, though, I regularly had attacks in the middle of the night - attacks of incredible dizziness, followed by severe vomiting and diarrhea. It usually lasted for about 12 hours, and they occurred about once a month.

Three of the attacks, after I had exercised heavily, caused me great concern. The first occurred in the summer of 1997 when my girl friend was visiting her son in California. One morning, after running a bit with my dog Fresco, I suddenly had another attack like the last one in Portugal at Saint Martinho. I could not even stand, I was so dizzy, and once I staggered back to our house, I spent the rest of the day vomiting, and sitting on the toilet.

The most scary attack occurred just a year later, after my girlfriend and the dog had taken a long walk. Once we got back to the car, I suddenly fell unconscious, falling on the road beside it, and splitting open my head in the process. Everyone thought I had either had a heart attack, or suffered a stroke. After I was rushed by ambulance to the hospital, sewn up, and given a cap scan, doctors were at a loss, though, to explain what had happened to me. Even another extensive examination by my own doctor revealed nothing.

My last attack occurred another year later after Fresco had been gored by a deer, and I got so upset in taking him to the hospital that I ultimately experienced a spell of dizziness which forced me to line down on the floor for awhile to avoid falling, and splitting open my head again. Fortunately, since then, I have had no more attacks.

While sceptics may still not believe my claims - believing that I just had some mysterious ailment which somehow cured itself - I am convinced that I was poisoned by the people mentioned above, and if they wish to dispute it, I urge them to take me to court. I have already had enough near escapes with death.

---

Now our two. leading disinformers, Jim D and Jim F, about almost anything on this site, especially the Dallas assassination, can get back to their dispute about LBJ when it was really Nixon who shot his way into the White House, as there was no way that 'Tricky' Dick could have done it without JFK's assassination.
Reply
#68
I stand by what I said.

Ford is trying to overwhelm the point with verbiage.

If Probe made a mistake or got something wrong, we made an attempt to correct the record. And we printed corrections.

In this instance, I searched the literature for corroboration. I got it with Marrs. Marrs wrote that Ford said he discovered the Ruby/Nixon memo and that in the interview with him, Ford still thought it was genuine. (See pgs. 269-70)

I then called Jim and asked him if he was sure about what he wrote, because Ford was making all kinds of threatening pronouncements. Jim said he would check it and get back to me. He did and and said he had taken notes on the interview which he had dug out of his notebooks. I thanked him and said, if that was the case I would alert Mr. Ford that this was the back-up source and his problem was with Marrs.

Anyone can look in Marrs' book, which is one of the most popular in the literature and zoomed onto the bestseller lists at the time of Stone's film. It has gone through several reprintings since. And Jim has just prepared a much more detailed index for it. And in that index, which was done over two decades after the initial run, Ford's name is still there. So the evidence is that Ford never got in contact with Marrs, and Marrs never retracted what he wrote. This is 22 years after he initially wrote it and a decade and a half after Ford got in contact with me.

The Marrs book was in circulation well before that issue of Probe was. And it certainly was read by many, many, many more people than that issue of Probe was read by. Probably over a hundred thousand people read that book. But we are to believe that Ford knew about the very small circulation journal, but not the very large circulation book. Even if that was the case--and its kind of hard to believe, considering that Stone based his movie in part on that book-- it was not the case after I alerted him to the fact that Marrs predated us.

I am sure Jim will call me when Ford calls him. As of today, he hasn't. And people are still buying and reading that book.
Reply
#69
James H. Fetzer Wrote:So I certainly agree with Charles [DRAGO] that Lyndon was the pivotal player without whom it would not have occurred as it actually did occur! So perhaps we are bridging the divide between us.

Charles Drago Wrote:"Lyndon was the pivotal player without whom it would not have occurred ... "

... as it occurred.

To be clear on my position: I conclude that, absent LBJ's willing if relatively limited participation in the plot -- which is to say, absent the criminal cooperation of JFK's Texas-born successor -- the conspiracy to kill JFK as we know it would have evolved in a manner quite distinct from what actually took place.

LBJ's importance to the cover-up may be understood via appreciation of this example: Others, as Jim D. correctly notes, set up and ran the WC. LBJ's conspiratorial function was to use the "powers" of the presidency to facilitate (hence his Facilitator role) the hijacking of all federal investigations other than the wholly controlled WC and -- MOST IMPORTANTLY -- lend the imprimatur of the Father State to the "final" verdict.

I write again: TO LEND THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE FATHER STATE TO THE "FINAL" VERDICT.
Reply
#70
Of course, you will stand by the crap you posted, Jim, as you have ever since I complained about the gross libels to you and Lisa Pease a few years ago - when I finally learned what you had posted in your special Christmas issue 1995 about my leading the covert operators out to get Nixon.

You have never printed any kind of retraction or clarification as you knew you couldn't be sued for what you had printed about fifteen years previously without my knowledge.

I can assure you that if I had known about your malicious lies, I would have spent every cent I had to get your ass.

And Marrs is lying through his teeth too, as I have never spoken to him in my life, and when he claims that he interviewed me during the early 1980s, I know it is untrue since I was out of the USA for three straight years at various places, and certainly would have remembered someone catching up with me.

And the biggest substantive lie is Marrs claiming that after having reviewed many FBI
memos, I had concluded that the Nixon-Ruby one - what Truby had cooked up, and I threatened him successfully with a law suit if he attributed it to anything I had done - was authentic. I think that I only seen a handful of FBI memos in my whole life.

It certainly is most depressing to have to deal with people like you, Marrs, and Peace
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Jim DiEugenio: Not to be Trusted Richard Gilbride 3 487 05-01-2024, 07:08 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio On "The Loser's Club" Brian Doyle 0 187 30-12-2023, 07:06 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Reviews Kamp's Book But Doesn't Mention Prayer Man Brian Doyle 0 314 06-10-2023, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Jim DiEugenio Betrays Deep Politics Forum Over Prayer Man Brian Doyle 4 579 05-10-2023, 05:11 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Gives Reference To ROKC Troll Farm And Kamp Brian Doyle 0 322 09-08-2023, 03:02 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Betrays Conspiracy Research Brian Doyle 1 439 07-07-2023, 04:32 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Jim DiEugenio Reviews The House of Kennedy Jim DiEugenio 0 2,109 26-04-2020, 06:50 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  James DiEugenio, I have a single question, would you answer? Scott Kaiser 12 6,892 11-06-2019, 04:32 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Denial of Justice reviewed by Jim DiEugenio Jim DiEugenio 4 3,676 23-05-2019, 10:35 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Jim DiEugenio Critiques CNN's American Dynasties Jim DiEugenio 0 13,825 20-07-2018, 09:40 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)