Photon – February 1
Tom S, please refer to the Washington Post article of Jan 31, 2016: “‘Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations”
Please note the following statements from the article: ” …eyewashing was a standard practice that had been in existence for decades.”
” The practice of sending false internal memos originated in a Cold War era marked by frequent ” mole hunts” for Soviet spies in the CIA workforce.”
If you accept the Washington Post as a credible source( and you already accept Ancestry.com as a reliable source for information not concerning birth certificates, death certificates or census records) it becomes apparent that your blind acceptance of CIA memos without any written association with other CIA records may not be justified.
As such, any claim that you make that the CIA records support your interpretations (such as the claim that Baldwin was a covert agent) must be taken with a large dose of skepticism.
26 thoughts on “Comment of the week”
Anyone else see the irony of the article regarding Spiro Agnew being investigated on the same page…?
Abu Zubaida….. the new Hathaway Mullah?
“I think they’ll doctor anything they send to us”. Dulles knew immediately when Russell said this, if not before, that he wasn’t going along with the official story. Which is why he had to deceive Russell into signing the Warren Omission with a fake stenographer and promise publication of his dissent. Which did not happen. Dulles was a conniving SOB. Well documented elsewhere.
That is correct Ronnie, Dulles convince Russell that there would be an addendum to the report with his dissent in it, if Russell would only sign off on the report so they could get publishing underway.
Like you noted it was a set up with a fake stenographer, and Russell’s dissent wasn’t even transcribed. Warren was in on this as well, because he provided the so-called stenographer and place and time for this staged event.
I’m surprised the Washington Post would tackle this subject when they won’t even review David Talbot’s Devil’s Chessboard.
If Dulles told other Warren Omission members he would expect agents to lie under oath, should they not wonder if they are being lied to at times by associates or superiors? If operations are at times done on a need to know basis does that not necessitate lying to those without the need to know? Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
To add fuel to the fire. Currently reading: “The Secret Team”, by Fletcher Prouty (1973). He more or less
states that internal deception is part and parcel of the CIA and reflective of the charcter of Allen Dulles, who basically wrote and implemented the Agency’s charter. Prouty refers to the 1949 Dulles-Jackson-Correa Report submitted to Truman and to “The Craft of Intelligence by A. Dulles (1963). In short,”the fun and games” continue!
From the Warren Commission executive sessions.;
Are you even aware that what you posted shows the Warren Commissioners to be engaged in an honest search for the truth?
“Are you even aware that what you posted shows the Warren Commissioners to be engaged in an honest search for the truth?”~McAdams
Oh that’s good “professor”! That is rich!
Surely Jeff can come up with a prize of some sort for the funniest remark made on JFKfacts.
Let me “translate” for you dear sir, what you just read was the Commissioners expressing the knowledge of their dilemma, that they were their to rubber stamp a forgone conclusion, and it was too late for them to squirm out of it by that time.
Of course they were “so proud” of this session that they decided to try to destroy the record of it completely. That is how “honorable” your heroes are Mister McAdams.
Do I need to spell it out for you?
The Commissioners, according to the buffs, were engaged in a cover up, trying to conceal the misdeeds of the CIA, FBI and everybody else in Washington officialdom.
And yet you have Russell and Dulles expressing skepticism about what they might hear from the agencies.
“And yet you have Russell and Dulles expressing skepticism about what they might hear from the agencies.”~McAdams
Obviously, but also acknowledging that they were in the position of simply rubber-stamping what these untrustworthy agencies would provide as the official story. That is the part you don’t seem to grasp.
It is even more explicit in the January 27 meeting.
I agree with the Sylvan Fox, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, on the WC:
o with lack of an adversarial cross-examination of witnesses and evidence, any conclusions will be unreliable
o the WC makes assertions regarding Oswald’s psychological health throughout the report without ever asking for the input of mental health experts (yes, we know about his evaluation at age 13 as a truant)
o the lack of any real follow-up on intriguing leads, from the police car honking in front of Oswald’s rooming house to 544 Camp Street to making a police sketch of the “Secret Service” man behind the knoll, is also an insurmountable issue of credibility
If you include FBI destruction of evidence and CIA obstruction, then the WR falls completely apart as a document worthy of anyone’s trust.
Are there any bearings, any foundation to form the basis of any argument? Curiously, Photon and John Armstrong are taking similar approaches, as in these examples of Armstrong’s approach in reaction to evidence
supporting the validity of the $21.45 postal money order received by Klein’s Sporting Goods of Chicago, independent of government sources, and in his longstanding, “two Landesbergs,” claim.
Bogman, doubts can be narrowed by comparing details provided by witnesses or details presented in CIA or in FBI reports, with information from sources independent of a witness or of a document.
This process is also useful to maintaining a POV dissimilar to the audience’s of Fox News.
As Photon must minimize or ignore all of the presented details supporting what CIA documents claim about
David Baldwin and Mr. and Mrs. Jesse Core, and Garrison files claim about Baldwin’s subsequent employment at the ITM, John Armstrong must run from the details presented here,
I think the mystery of the pistol and rifle has to do with the receiving end of the deliveries, not the ordering and sending of the merchandise.
I think Holmes was involved in getting those items into the hands of the DPD in Dallas. I don’t think Oswald ever had possession of either of those weapons.
Harry Holmes was inexplicably present during the last interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, just before Oswald was led downstairs to his murder by Ruby.
According to CSI Fiester’s trajectory analysis the sniper who fired the head shot was just below the Dallas Post Office, on the S.W. corner of Dealey Plaza, giving Holmes and his compatriots a birds eye view of their handiwork.
However, I don’t think this sniper used the Carcano. He was using a high powered rifle with frangible bullets. The Carcano and S&W .38 were just props for the set-up of the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.
“Bogman, doubts can be narrowed by comparing details provided by witnesses or details presented in CIA or in FBI reports, with information from sources independent of a witness or of a document.”
I get your point, Tom, and I’m not you have to throw out any and all evidence included in the WR or from federal sources. In fact, I think they’re key to help piece together the real story of the assassination.
I just agree with Fox’s central tenet that the WR is a flawed document because of its lack of traditional evidentiary procedures and adversarial witness cross examinations. The fact that it held no public hearings doesn’t help either.
It’s clear from the historical record now that LBJ formed the commission, at least in his statements, to avoid nuclear confrontation. And that concern or excuse, whatever your POV, was based on a highly suspect transcript of Oswald confirming he met with Kostikov. I believe the tapes existed, confirmed by several reliable sources, and the CIA destroyed them.
But this also doesn’t mean I think the entire federal govt was in on the conspiracy. I think you just need about a dozen people in the know, maybe 3-4 who know the plot and then compartmentalized operatives on the ground to make it happen.
I do think the conspirators gave the authorities enough circumstantial evidence to lynch Oswald with and Hoover’s FBI ran with it while Helms and Angleton, either suspecting treason in their own ranks, vaguely aware of the plot or intimately involved, stifled every investigation.
It was not an honest search for truth. despite perhaps the honest efforts and intentions of underlings following orders, because:
i) it was constrained by the threat of WWIII;
ii) the FBI and CIA did not share all information;
iii) Hoover (or the FBI) promoted the L.A.T.;
iv) there seems to have been planted, altered or destruction of evidence.
As just one example, the HSCA determined, in contrast with the WC, that Jack Ruby had SIGNIFICANT underworld connections.
27 Jan., 1964 …….
“Commissioners discussed putting FBI agents under oath and questioning them, since according to Dulles “The record might not be on paper.”
Interesting that Dulles and Helms both state that “you won’t find it on paper” or words similar. What the old boys did is simply using their own computer server.
….or maybe on the subway walls.
And tenement halls? …..circa 1963 – 64….
So photon argues that the CIA is an honorable organization whose employees would never, ever do anything untoward when it comes to aiding or covering up the assassination of JFK.
However, if CIA records contradict his own personal views they are not credible because the CIA is routinely dishonest.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of ….. oh, never mind.
“As such, any claim that you make that the CIA records support your interpretations (such as the claim that Baldwin was a covert agent) must be taken with a large dose of skepticism.”~Photon
Concerning ‘Eyewash’; this assertion cuts all ways. ANY internal CIA record must be read with a large dose of skepticism. As I have always maintained, there is NOTHING derived from CIA that is trustworthy. The Agency’s whole mission is one of deceit.
The only other source available is now the huge library of information found on the Internet. We must put the puzzle together ourselves while standing on the shoulders of other researchers that came before us.
Photon, I’m still puzzling over your firm stance on David Baldwin. It prompts me to ask about your familiarity,
if any, with this gal?:
I have none. Garrison’s wife was named Leah. Who is Liz-or did the newspaper make a mistake ?
Okay, thanks, no I am not suspecting any error in that photo caption or in the article reporting.
Middle name is Elizabeth…..
and – http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1992/Jim-Garrison-Prosecutor-in-Alleged-JFK-Plot-Dead-at-70/id-d65112a90db324ff361887de118d8f74
I put this in a comment, almost a week ago. (see – https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855528 )
Now I am going to fill in the blanks (xxxxx’s).
Curiously, John McAdams posted this in his newsgroup less than six months ago, but it is apparent
he either did not read the book, or was not informed enough when he did read it, to note what
Among the most interesting details that the book’s author, Donald H. Carpenter presented, are two that
I spent considerable time and effort finding before I first turned to his book last evening.
Since January 29, I’ve searched fruitlessly, until last night, attempting to satisfy myself that the following research details were original. I find that I merely confirm what was disclosed by Carpenter, and overlooked or ignored.
I got “there” after finding the wedding announcement in the image below and, wanting to learn more about the best man, the younger Raworth, doing a google search combining the terms Raworth, Ziegler, and findagrave, and finding this.: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=69124634
There was little interest in author Carpenter’s book:
What he cited so briefly and without comment, pleases almost no one!:
I’ve discovered, belatedly through the book of author Carpenter, that his cites and this one can
be verified if not accepted as presented.:
Photon’s and to a lesser extent, Dr. McAdams’s reactions to the presentation of Garrison – Shaw related details over the past three weeks are illuminating and troubling. Dean Nicholas B. Lemann looks even
worse, and contemplating Photon’s comments, it is surprising that this is possible.
Was Tom Purivs “on to something?”
Last night, I presented more evidence from Donald H Carpenter’s book on an older
discussion devoted to Clay Shaw. The point seemed to escape Photon, but Dr. McAdams’s
was thoughtful….so far, anyway.:
A masterful presentation!
The connections are blatantly clear, the cabal gathered to put Garrison in the hole obvious, the agenda; also obvious.
As you say, Garrison stepped out of line; an analog to the Kennedy situation smaller scale. Titular bitchular slamboowie.
A clear and present ranger.
Yours is probably the most thorough exposition and defense of Jim Garrison made thus far!
As complex and tricky as the going has been – you have made your point__to those willing to follow your carefully aligned dots.