Charles Drago Wrote:And so an enigmatic ecdysiast nearly brought down the ultimate pyramid scheme single-handedly?
That must have left a pasty taste in Harvey's mouth. And poor Little Egypt ... she must have been in and out of her cups for months...
Truly classic.
Mencken would be smiling.
www.jfkessentials.com
Where Angels Tread Lightly, 2015, John M. Newman
State Secret, 2013, Bill Simpich
Oswald and the CIA, 2008 ed., John M. Newman
Deep Politics and DP ll, 2003 ed., Peter Dale Scott
Our Man In Mexico... 2008, Jefferson Morley
Wilderness of Mirrors, 1980, David C. Martin
JFK and Vietnam, 1992, John M. Newman
Enemy of the Truth...2012, Sherry P. Fiester
I've got the 1979 Dell paperback. On 204 a dagger icon note bears a paragraph including the sentence "The weakness might well be that the amnesia would not hold up under police interrogation, but that would not matter if the police did not believe his preposterous story about being hypnotized or if he were shot resisting arrest."
There's more to the note on that page, but my departure is that this line of hypothesis suggests Sirhan B. Sirhan (may he be paroled and deprogrammed) rather than Lee Oswald.
A happy discovery of cracking Marks after all this time is finding my photocopy of the L.A. Times clipping of April, 4, 1999, "Gottlieb, CIA poison master, dies at 80."
The programming theme was the basis for the 1997 Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson, Patrick Stewart and that horse woman.
Truly sad that a site which purports to be a Deep Politics Forum to behave like trolls when confronted with a most likely case of entrapping LHO as a Manchurian Candidate to kill JFK, and to his lasting honor refusing to be so programmed, resulting in Harvey, Helms, Angleton, Porter Goss, Jack Ruby and other assorted scum setting him up as the fallguy for a nuclear showdown with the Cubans and Soviets.
More like what you would expect from America's covert government, establishing a last line of defense of poor Oswald being part of the killer squad, - like what the screwballs, contending that 9/11 was a deliberate inside job, so that poor former FBI agent John O'Neill is made to look like the guy whose incomptence allowed the WTC to be brought down rather than the screwball George Tenet's CIA who thought that it could be better coppers than the embarrassed Bureau over the Robert Hanssen case when it came to stopping alleged highjackers.
Don't think I shall be spending much time around here.
15-02-2011, 11:24 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2011, 12:52 AM by Charles Drago.)
Phil Dragoo Wrote:The programming theme was the basis for the 1997 Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson, Patrick Stewart and that horse woman.[//QUOTE]
Phil, do you know the work of Monte Evans, author of The Rather Narrative?
He has been silent in this world -- at least to my ears -- for many years, but his claims that Gibson's character was based in part on his own experiences always resonated for me.
[quote=Phil Dragoo]I think in Dallas they just shot people and lied.[/FONT]
I love it!
Reminds me of Sir Laurence Olivier's one-sentence master class in acting, as delivered to Dustin Hoffman:
Phil Dragoo Wrote:The programming theme was the basis for the 1997 Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson, Patrick Stewart and that horse woman.[//QUOTE]
Phil, do you know the work of Monte Evans, author of The Rather Narrative?
He has been silent in this world -- at least to my ears -- for many years, but his claims that Gibson's character was based in part on his own experiences always resonated for me.
[quote=Phil Dragoo]I think in Dallas they just shot people and lied.[/FONT]
I love it!
Reminds me of Sir Laurence Olivier's one-sentence master class in acting, as delivered to Dustin Hoffman:
And speaking of Marathon Man, do you remember the ominous, non-sequitur soccer ball seen just once bouncing outside a Paris opera house and scaring the wits out of Roy Scheider's character -- a seasoned, otherwise fearless U.S. intel officer assigned to mind the interests of surviving Nazi war criminals?
Just the expected highjacking of the thread by trolls Charles and Jack, thanks to Phil's use of what a veteran told John Marks about the Agency never having used 'Manchurian Candidates' in operations, but he admitted that didn't really know. (The second footnote, the one with the dagger, at the bottom of p. 204 in my Norton edition.
Why Gittinger accepted to be interviewed by Marks was that he had to explain away the test on Oswald or there might be all hell to pay if the author just used the files on his own. (See the very last paragraph in the notes on p. 244 which recorded Gittinger's change of mind.)
Gittinger finally made out that the July 1963 attempt was still just a most belated test, though if it were, it could have been repeated by the same people, or Dr. George White could have been replaced by a consultant who could do the job. (pp. 201-2 in the Norton edition)
Why this was not successful was because LHO, it seems, refused to be hypnotized despite his so wanting the money because he was not willing to shoot JFK.
If he had, the whole subsequent history would have been far different.
For more about the Agency's operational use of 'Manchurian Candidates' in the assassinations of MLK, RFK, and Governor Wallace, see my article "Mind-Control Experiments and The Deadliest Secrets of the Cold War," in Issue Eight of Eye Spy magazine, pp. 50-55), an article with 23 references, and a well-known editorial board.
Please read the paragraph above with the utmost care. Note how a wholly subjective conclusion is attached to a citation (Ford should have placed a hyphen between 19 and 20; he can't even get his own reference correct, but I quibble).
In doing so, Ford is trying to suggest that his unsubstantiated and, in light of all that we know of the events in question, indefensible contention is shared and documented by a respected and accomplished author.
This is the stuff of disinformation and/or self-hypnosis. It is not serious research, and it must not be confused with serious research. It is dangerous nonsense.
Trowbridge H. Ford Wrote:Why Gittinger accepted to be interviewed by Marks was that he had to explain away the test on Oswald or there might be all hell to pay if the author just used the files on his own. (See the very last paragraph in the notes on p. 244 which recorded Gittinger's change of mind.)
Please read the paragraph above with the utmost care. Ask yourself: WHAT "TEST ON OSWALD?" No such event has been established via objective research. Ford here attempts to misdirect us by describing his fantasy as established fact.
This is the stuff of disinformation and/or self-hypnosis.
Trowbridge H. Ford Wrote:Why this was not successful was because LHO, it seems, refused to be hypnotized despite his so wanting the money because he was not willing to shoot JFK.
Please read the above paragraph with the utmost care. It consists of pure fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less. And Ford's language again would have us believe that somehow, somewhere, the LHO hypnosis session which he references actually took place and actually has been documented.
This is the stuff of disinformation and/or self-hypnosis.
Trowbridge H. Ford Wrote:For more about the Agency's operational use of 'Manchurian Candidates' in the assassinations of MLK, RFK, and Governor Wallace, see my article "Mind-Control Experiments and The Deadliest Secrets of the Cold War," in Issue Eight of Eye Spy magazine, pp. 50-55), an article with 23 references, and a well-known editorial board.
Please read ... well, you get the picture.
Circular reasoning, appeals to authority, all the stuff of disinformation and/or self-hypnosis. Be it 23 references or 2300, Ford has demonstrated time and time again that he will attach his fantasies to the hard research of others in order to deceive his readers into thinking that the product of his own disinformation and/or self-hypnosis is supported elsewhere.
Trowbridge H. Ford Wrote:The only problem I have is with you, Charles.
I used the W. W. Norton 1991 paperback editon of John Marks' book, and the rapid induction hypnosis experiment is discussed on pp. 202-3, and I never said that the note was numbered on p. 244, only said that it was at the bottom of the page.
The only addition I made to what was provided is the claim that the subject was apparently LHO, "...a low-level agent whom the Soviets had apparently doubled." (p. 203)
Now how many such agents did CIA have available in a Mexico City motel in July 1963 with such a contested status, and James Angleton's Counterintelligence Staff in Washington wanted so hypnotized?
The only possible agent I can think of with this questionable doubled status is Oswald, especially since you mention him in connection with Yuri Nosenko who "...said that the KGB had no interest in Oswald." (p. 154)
You have a most limited view of research - never go with what the suspects somehow disclose!
And, as expected, regarding other findings, you attack my methods rather than the offers and the messages.
Don't expect anything more from me, as I consider you a total waste of time.
Cripes another one. I am sick of this character, both he and Fetzer are here only to insult. I notice I asked Fetzer a question about his 9-11 views 2 days ago which he does not answer but he has time to insult other researchers. Now this guy.
Who are you sick of, Dawn? You apparently are referring to me, having posted my post to justify your response.
What is insulting in what I said? Moreover, what is insulting in anything I have posted.
I think that I have been most reserved, considering the unending personal attacks that Charles and David have mustered against everything I have claimed.
If the person Gittinger spoke about being given rapid induction hypnosis was not LHO, who was it then? And if the alleged test failed, why wasn't it performed again? Some important particulars are missing here, and no effort has been made by any other researcher but me to attempt to supply them aka a cover up.
Just seems that the leading lights on this site have all the answers.
