Showing posts with label JFK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JFK. Show all posts

Monday, October 29, 2012

A Return to Paranormalcy


True Confessions of a Paranormal Radio Addict
by Geoff Vasil
http://www.steamshovelpress.com/paranormalcy.html

Growing up in Seattle and then rural parts of Washington state—even Seattle was a backwater back then—I remember scouring the radio dial for something interesting from a very young age. I used to get CBS Radio Mystery Theater sometimes, or pull in KGO AM 810 San Francisco, the super-powered station, when the ionosphere was right. San Francisco was exotic, there was even a television series called The Streets of San Francisco which used to scare me when I was allowed to stay up late enough to watch it. Sometime after checking the radio dial had become habitual, I came across the strangest program I’d ever heard, on a sunny afternoon, on KRAB FM out of Seattle, a community radio station. It was a conversation with a man, an interview, who said the most wonderful and outlandish things I’d ever heard, as a young boy. He was talking about chakras, breathing out one nostril at a time, reciting AUM, Sanskrit, and a lot of other stuff you’d pigeon-hole as spiritual or New Age now, but his talk shifted back and forth between this and high technology. In fact, he said he’d invented a three-dimensional television, in his garage, except that the Office of Naval Intelligence had got wind of it, came in, slapped a CLASSIFIED on everything and stolen it. They always do this with the latest technology American entrepreneurs come up with, he explained, and went on to list other exotic things kept from the public in this way.

This was more or less my introduction to “paranormal” radio, if paranormal can be borrowed for the purpose from the stricter meaning of scientific investigation of spiritual phenomenon, studies of clairvoyance, ESP and ghosts which have been at the heart of modern Western scientific endeavor since almost the beginning, when Boyle, a founder of the Royal Society, was in touch with Kirk, the author of The Secret Commonwealth. And well should these things inspire wonder as well as the desire for an explanation, even if it has somehow become fashionable among the scientific set to scoff at the inexplicable.

Later, much later, I stumbled across Art Bell in the same manner, looking for something to aid in achieving sleep on the radio. Between KRAB and Bell there was the entire parapsychological milieu of 1970s America, from Uri Geller to Nimoy’s In Search Of (both the original specials and the series), and a whole slew of magazines with an alternative slant on history, reality and the future, including Omni, Future Life, Starlog and those random UFO magazines I used to shoplift at the local grocery store. The first Art Bell encounter I remember was drifting in and out of sleep as KVI faded in and out, with Al Bielik telling the story of the Philadelphia Project (I think for the first time). The fading in and out was fine, it didn’t affect the story much as I drifted in and out (They set up alternating magnetic fields ... vortex ... Caller on the Wild Card Line, Line Number One next), but ... reality intruded in the form of semi-distant blood-curdling screams, although they were not navy men embedded in the bulkheads of the USS Eldridge, because it was clearly a female voice. I ended up getting dressed and going out to investigate, because it sounded like someone was getting killed, and it turned out someone was. I was never successful in getting through to the Seattle detectives investigating the case, mainly because they never called me back, but I left all I knew on their answering machines, and I know they heard it, because the wikipedia article for the murdered Seattle singer Mia Zapata links to an Unsolved Mysteries webpage which says the detectives first got a break on the case from an “aural” witness who contacted them. I’m sure that was me, on their answering machines, as they were on vacation.

Whether that was the first Art Bell I heard, or whether it was the time he was complaining about rabbits around his transmitters in Pahrump and I actually called up to chew the fat, I don’t know for sure, but Al Bielik combined with the death-knell of the loud punk Mia Zapata have never disentwined in my subconscious, which I suppose goes with the territory if you decide to let late-night radio inform your subconscious.

Later I had some brushes with what might be called paranormal journalism. I volunteered for the local underground semi-college-affiliated newspaper, whose editor and prime mover was a little ga-ga over aliens, UFOs, Roswell. Sometime during that period I happened to attend a meeting at the college, took notes, and afterwards collected notes from friends who were there, compiled them into an article and got the prime mover to print it in the paper, although he was quite skeptical of my/our skepticism. See, the meeting was actually a Heaven’s Gate recruitment drive, although they had a different name that month. They hung up posters around town about aliens and UFOs and rented a lecture room. I’d seen very similar posters put out by a charismatic fundamentalist church in Eugene, Oregon, and had attended that, and the Heaven’s Gate people were not a whole lot different in their approach to what they called “Luciferian” aliens, and probably not too distant from some of the ideas John Keel and Nick Redfern float about the demonic nature of the visitors. The thing was, no one had heard about this particular group before. I called around, a friend asked a friend who knew something about them, and it turned out they had an earlier shtick where they’d arrive in a new town (always in the western USA), claim to be stranded time travellers, and ask for bus fare, coffee money, laundromat change, whatever. This brought it home, because some of those rural myths had shown up on Art Bell’s program already. I asked the “astronauts in training” at the meeting some pointed questions about sexuality, masturbation, after which they got quite embarrassed almost (to be expected) and Applewhite, who had been sitting in the first or second row of the audience, took some real offense, stood up and delivered a harangue, mainly to me. After they committed mass suicide, or whatever it was that happened outside San Diego, my article (I gave credit to two friends whose notes I used as co-authors) was one of maybe only a handful that contained any information at all about the cult, and was somehow found by the local mainstream paper in Olympia and passed around. I was halfway around the globe at that point, watching the eerie blue-green light of Hale-Bopp in the night sky, blissfully unaware of “the mothership” behind the comet mentioned on the Art Bell program, but I did hear about the mass suicide, and one of the co-authors sent me an email about what happened. A few years later I caught a BBC dramatization which included Bell, Strieber and other people involved, and it was fairly well done. A few years after that I learned the editor and prime mover of that local underground semi-college-affiliated paper, a labor of love by a man whose veins flowed with the ink of several generations of Jewish newspaper men, had been murdered in a most horrific way, beheaded, his body dismembered, body parts hidden in his garden. Word was, it was a drug deal gone bad, a real possibility with him, but for some petty amount of pot and some paltry sum, something like $20.

The paranormal, the weird, the latest fucked up conspiracy theory tying it all together, was never far away on the West Coast. From Seattle to Eugene to Berkeley to Isla Vista it only took a little coaxing to elicit the most fantastic notions from freaky strangers. I knew about the Roswell autopsy film by word of mouth. I heard about Dulce and Area 51 and Kirtwell and all the rest probably before anyone had published anything about them. It’s simply a part of the cultural ferment of the American West Coast, the general craziness and the ambient cutting-edge-ness of the coast that is either the cul-de-sac or culmination, depending upon how you look at it, of the entire trend of Western civ from Bablyon on. But as so often happens, you never miss a thing until it’s gone, and you sometimes fail even to notice it.

When I moved away—partly because the murder of Mia Zapata really disturbed me and I didn’t think having people strangled in my neighborhood could possibly be any way to live—I did miss all the paranormal gossip, no matter how outlandish. I turned to internet radio, eventually. Listening to Art Bell on-line over dialup wasn’t very satisfying, when it was possible, and there was a hiatus of several years before anything seemed to become available. Or maybe I just wasn’t sure where to look. Some C2C episodes started showing up on a music file-sharing network, so I grabbed those and heard George Noory for the first time. Bell retired several times while I was learning how to find the show on the internet. It was always hit-and-miss and many of the episodes I found were outdated, which was fine, because I’d missed a lot of what went on in America, including September 11th.

When Art Bell was leaving his own program and Noory seemed to be taking over, Art Bell seemed stuck in a very patriotic reality-tunnel regarding 9/11, and was also becoming stuck in some sort of immovable position on global warming, although his earlier “quickening” and “drastic climate change” allowed for global warming, manmade or not, followed by a new ice age. Or any permutation. Noory was interesting because he let the guests talk a lot while he listened, and even let them hang themselves at times, but the years that have passed since Art Bell left have seen Noory become a bit confused at times about what the guests are actually saying. While Noory is more flexible on whether 9/11 was self-inflicted and on the possible causes of climate change, his show is so much less interesting than Art Bell’s, simply because of Bell’s radio presence, his experience combined with his sense of immediacy, what constitutes entertainment for the listeners, his wit and his whole personality.

I never did learn what happened with someone blackmailing Art Bell about his son, nor how his wife died.

Knapp and Punnett brought different things to the C2C table: Knapp as a serious paranormal investigator, Punnett as a somewhat manic but very witty heir to Art Bell’s own mania and wit. The overall sense, though, has been that the people producing Coast to Coast AM are trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and Humpty seems retired for good now. The “latest addition to the Coast Family,” as they say, John B. Wells, while he has his own strengths and weaknesses as a host and interviewer, almost seems like a political appointment: he in a sense tows the line of that other alternative radio talkshow host based in Austin, Alex Jones, or at least brings the same sensibility to Coast, although in a much more aesthetically palatable form. If it’s not a political appointment, it is one based on a marketing specialist’s sense of which way the wind is blowing (away from Bell’s 9/11-ism and manmade global warming, towards a set of beliefs I’ll touch on below regarding patriotic alternative radio).

I can’t say much about Jeff Rense because I missed that boat, I only started listening about a year ago. He has a great radio presence, although he interrupts guests at the wrong moments sometimes. He’s a smooth talker, an experienced interviewer and evidently he’s a real aficionado of radio, sometimes mentioning the Great Gildersleeve, or another old-time radio series, and modeling his own show on a sort of serial basis, where most of the guests are regulars, who come back, week after week or month after month, and discuss the latest. I think this is an extremely intriguing format: mixing old-style “the lost art of” conversation and fireside dialogue with the weird, the para- and hyper-normal and the alternative. The only problem is that most of the guests don’t seem to generate new material from week to week, so much is repeated, and Jeff Rense himself seems to have become set in his ways and even cynical concerning life, politics and the prospects for humanity. What should by all rights be an exhilarating and surreal—in the true sense of the word—format sometimes becomes tedious.

I started listening to Rense because Michael Rivero moved there for a time. Mike Rivero and his What Really Happened radio program and website is decidedly and intentionally NOT paranormal. For years he told callers: “We don’t do UFOs/chemtrails/HAARP etc., here, go to Rense.” The problem was Rivero shared a network with Alex Jones, the Genesis Communications Network of Ted ___, involved in peddling gold. Rivero and Jones disagree about Zionism, Israel and Jews, and Jones allegedly cancelled his weekly chat with Rivero on his Alex Jones Show program, or at least Rivero felt he had. Ted ___ probably took that opportunity to tighten the screws on Rivero a bit for his alleged anti-Semitism, although there were other shows he continued to host for years which were basically apologies for Nazi Germany and attacks on Jews and Israel as the alleged masters of global banking. First Rivero went to John Stadtmiller’s Republic network, which carries its own share of anti-Semitic programming, but for unknown reasons Rivero was forced to leave after about a year there. Rense had empty slots on his internet radio feed, Rivero asked him for one, and he agreed. Rense’s network hosts the David Duke Show. David Duke is the former politician from New Orleans who was exposed as a KKK leader or something, and repatriated to the Ukraine where he lives now (and where Ed Dames, Art Bell’s first remote viewing star to come out of the closet, also now lives). Rivero left the Rense network around the same time Rense was coming under attack by former associates for his finances and some sordid details regarding an ex-wife. Rivero immediately went back to Stadtmiller’s Republican, where he is now, in the slot following Springola Speaks, which seems to be devoted to debunking the myth of the Holocaust, to rehabilitating Nazi Germany, busting the global Jewish bankers, etc.

Rivero isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite by any means. In fact he has Sephardic ancestry, as he frequently says on air, although his ancestors went crypto to please the inquisitors at some point. His “anti-Semitism” consists of his personal negative experience with his first wife, who was Jewish, and his distaste for Zionism and Israeli injustice towards and atrocities against the Palestinians and other Arabs (although he occasionally refers to Jews as parasites in specific contexts). He has a brilliant on-air personality, a great sense of humor and seems to actually enjoy taking calls from listeners, so long as they don’t stray into paranormality. His whole slant is rationalist and he tends to shine when discussing science, tectonics, space exploration and technical subjects. His domestic politics are somewhat underdeveloped: he has a strong inclination towards constitutional government and “real money,” but supported Obama in 2008 and is now backing Ron Paul, saying he has traditionally voted Republican. He refutes all “birther” calls by saying Obama was so-and-so’s lovechild, end of story, natural born citizen (albeit bastard), and claims the whole birther issue was conceived in order to draw the opposition into an untenable position, whereupon Obama will milk sympathy from the American people by declaring his mother was a whore, not in so many words.

Rivero also exhibits one of the interesting features of the current crop of alternative, patriotic and paranormal radio: when the posited “false-flag” never comes off, he is wont to claim some credit for defeating it through public exposure. Even so, he is less bogged down by personal deceit and self-delusion than many hosts, and his program is an interesting mix of current events, science class and speculation on politics, banking and sociology. Some paranormal/alternative hosts could adopt the motto “Stopping US war on Iran weekly since 2003,” but Rivero has the grace to now describe himself as a peace activist.

Rivero’s polar opposite on alternative radio could be Webster Tarpley. Tarpley often uses history to argue for socialistic infrastructure projects, wiping off the books all trades in derivatives and debts accrued thereof, the introduction of real healthcare and welfare projects, etc. It’s interesting that Tarpley and Rivero agree on two important points: both are very much in favor of an active space program, and both tend towards sympathy towards Russia, both as a victim of NATO encirclement and as the possible savior of the world through the possible vetoing of the possible war against Syria and possibly Iran.

Sympathy for Russia is not lacking on other patriotic and alternative programs, including people who once considered themselves on the right side of the Cold War. It is not unusual to hear hosts saying Russia has a better and freer media than the corporately-controlled US media, that personal freedom in Russia is now greater than in the US, and that the US has embraced fascism (corporate control of politics) while Russia is still moving towards a free market system.

One of the main points of contention between Tarpley and the patriotic internet radio community seems to be his total rejection of von Mises-style Austrian School economics, a sort of theoretical model of free-market capitalism which some Ayn Rand-type libertarians embrace, including Ron Paul. Tarpley believes it is a tool of the ruling elite based in the City of London, the center of all evil in his assessment of vampire-capitalism (an assessment originally done for Lyndon LaRouche, incidentally, many years ago, although no less salient for that reason). Many on the right side of patriotic radio imbibe and repeat these sorts of assumptions and beliefs about economic reality unexamined, including Stadtmiller, Jones and Rense.

Alex Jones has been the giant of alternative radio for the last several years. There’s much to criticize, and much to applaud in his approach, but two points chosen more or less at random for now:

1) While espousing traditional right-wing values such as right-to-life and a monetary system backed by gold, Alex Jones also argues against what he calls “the false left-right paradigm” in American politics, in other words, the idea that either of the two parties are in any way different.

2) Alex Jones does not like the idea of transhumanism (of uploading human consciousness to machines to achieve virtual immortality, among other things), yet his insistence on “information warfare” in place of organized labor strikes and/or armed conflict/self-defense to bring about political change in the United States essentially directs or detours all dissent under his direction towards a sort of internet bitch-fight, in other words, into a virtual realm, a la transhumanism.

To be fair to Alex Jones, he does engage in real, on-the-ground bullhorning of the elite, something of his trademark, and while he himself seems devoted to traditional right-wing values, he doesn’t hold that up (usually) as a precondition for others to engage the powers that be in battle.

The problem with Alex Jones is none of the above, nor is it his yelling and screaming on air. It’s that so much information gets repeated, and so little new is introduced. It is not fair to call his website infowars.com merely an aggregator of mainstream news, because he and his staff do original work, it’s just that one is left with the feeling that very little real new information is being broached. Again, Alex Jones’s home network is Genesis, involved in selling gold, and he is a friend and supporter of senator Ron Paul, whose economic notions are definitely “Austrian” (aka City of London).

Jones’s detractors often attack him, ironically, for his lack of anti-Semitism. Jones refuses to attack the state of Israel as such and never claims “the Jews did 9/11” or anything of that nature. His anti-Semitic critics claim his wife is Jewish.

Another flange arrayed against Jones go back to William Cooper, who did his own patriotic-alternative-paranormal shortwave broadcasts for a number of years, and has been involved in exposing various elements of the UFO and JFK mysteries. Unfortunately, Bill Cooper was often wrong, including his categorical claim and his alleged cinematic proof that the driver shot JFK. He was probably put onto that tack by John Lear, son of the Lear Jet and Iran/Contra pilot. Cooper, an alcoholic, used to spew venom when he was drunk, and might have been drinking when he attacked Alex Jones several times on his shortwave radio broadcast, referring enigmatically to Jones’s “nipple piercings” at one point. Cooper was killed by the police outside his home, while Jones kept capturing new markets, leading some Cooper fans to the conclusion their man was the real deal, while Jones is a G-man at base. The thing about Cooper, though, was that when he sobered up, he wasn’t afraid to admit he was wrong about his wildest ideas. That’s not a comparison with Jones, who is also somewhat capable of the same thing, it’s simply an observation, Yeltin’s alleged launching of nukes on New Years’ Eve aside. Both men claimed to have predicted 9/11; Bill Cooper might have actually predicted it.

Another man who straddles the patriotic/alternative/paranormal radio spectrum is Dr. Bill Deagle. His Nutrimedical show is carried on Ted Andersen’s Genesis network. Deagle is the most interesting of this bunch on a regular basis: his predictions are always wrong, but always seem intended to inspire real fear, from the coming binary weapon trigger to turn avian flu into mass murder of humanity, to the Gulf Stream stopping because of the oil-and-methane blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. Nibiru is coming, just over the horizon. Scalar weapons, earthquakes, ice ages, HAARP, nuclear armageddon, it’s always happening, every day and every week, but usually only in the third hour, because the first two hours seem to be devoted to selling “nutriceutical” medications. Deagle describes himself as a Jewish Christian who received access to classified DoD mass murder plans when he was posted to Fort Falken (or is it Falken Base?) in Colorado. He also learned about the massive supercomputer there. Whenever he mentions the classified site, whatever it’s actually called, I always flash back to the film War Games and the Dr. Falken who created Joshua, the talking artificial intelligence computer the main character hacks into somewhat accidentally, which in turn brings to mind the prosecutor’s words at a certain Kevin Mitnick trial: “He can start World War III by whistling into a payphone.” Deagle presents a delicious level of intrigue, and, who knows, some of his predictions are probably bound to come true sooner or later. For much of the last year he managed to score Robert Felix, author and the force behind the iceagenow.info website, during the second half of the third hour on Fridays, adding considerably to the overall effect. To be fair, Deagle seems to know his medicine, which is mainly what the show is about, and which gave him his entree to the world of classified secrets.

Moving outside the alternative political realm to what could be called real paranormal radio, the pickings are rather slim, or at least, I don’t know or listen to a lot of them. The ones I do like include The Stench of Truth, now on Inception Radio Network, a network whose other shows seem mainly devoted to UFOs and ghosts, although I’m not well versed and haven’t heard much of them. Stench, formerly on blogspot radio, announces the guest for the upcoming show at thestenchoftruth.com website and the show can be caught live on Inception through their internet radio stream, or found in the archives there. Ted Torbich, the host, spends considerable time questioning interesting people every Sunday, and seems to have a fairly solid grasp of the subjects he tackles, and some occult perspective as well. Ted, who used to be called Tenebrous T on blogspot, lets his guests speak, and only interrupts with thoughtful questions here and there, basically moderating the monologue, and sometimes it is a bit slow, but informative if you have the patience for it.

Another host who employs even more of a hands-off approach is Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Radio in Sweden. His guests run the gamut of parapolitical, economic, occult, ufological and similar informants, but, depending on the talent of the guest, it usually isn’t extremely interesting, unless it’s a topic that engages you completely. He posts the first hour free and asks you to subscribe for Hour Two, which is never any more exciting than the first hour, I’ve found. Lately some sort of arrogance, or perhaps it is simply lack of native facility in English, has crept into the endeavor: their new motto is “Red Ice Radio: A Voice of Reason in Northern Europe.” As if Northern Europe, or Southern Europe, were engulfed in insanity otherwise... Apparently Henrich DIDN’T name his Red Ice Radio and Red Ice Creations after the well-known phenomenon of red snow caused by the actions of extremophile bacteria in the Arctic. Nonetheless, it is a better name than Yellow Snow Radio. I think. Maybe not.

Mel Fabergas’s Veritas Radio has the same scheme: a paranormal guest for two hours, first hour free, second by subscription. I’ve never heard the second hour, although I’m not sure it’s because it’s difficult to pirate and pass around, and rather suspect no one bothers to share it due to lack of interest. Fabergas, like Henrik Palmgren, is not a native speaker of American English, or even English English, but whereas Palmgren doesn’t seem to care much, Fabergas emulates a deep baritone radio announcer voice, but doesn’t quite achieve the ideal. His questions are a hell of a lot more interesting, in general, than Red Ice’s, and his guests are generally more “on topic” in terms of paranormalcy, known names discussing known and novel cases and events.

Again, since I was late to the table, I can’t say a lot about Project Camelot, except that the lady now in charge tends to annoy me in the way she deals with guests, but her questions and objections and interruptions are generally good. She seems to rely heavily on “whistleblowers” and the information they have passed to her privately, hence the name for her show is Whistleblower Radio, as far as I can tell. The other half of Camelot was her husband or boyfriend, apparently, and when they broke up, they did parallel shows, although I haven’t heard on of his in several years now. The topics are generally UFOs with a heavy dose of madness thrown in, such as the Elenin Comet hysteria (correct me if I’m wrong, but should it have been transcribed from the Russian as Yelenin? So much for the “hidden message” of ELE, as Extinction Level Event... and what is NIN supposed to stand for? Nine Inch Nails?). The quality depends on the guest rather than the host.

A lone, somewhat newish, new to me at least, voice in the wilderness is Gary “Spaceman” Bell’s A View from Space, broadcast by 640 AM Toronto, but never ever even once appearing on their archives or podcast page. The Spaceman comes up with a heady mix weekly of numerology, current events, British royal-watching, occultism and Bible studies to precede Coast to Coast AM on Saturday nights. According to the host, the ruling elite believe in three things: numerology, sacred geometry and something else which slips my mind right now. No wonder I’m not a ruling elite. Anyway, he ties it all together, including the Stanley Cup, the latest Batman film, Kabbala, the times and dates and the demonic race. Queen Elizabeth will abdicate and/or die in the autumn of 2016, after which Prince Harry will wear the crown. He knows the date, even the time down to the minute, which is, invariably, both a hidden 13, and the royal 3, and a 9, a very rare number indeed. Now that demonoid has been shut down, there are only two places on the internet to get recordings of the webcast as far as I know. You can listen live on the 640 AM Toronto webpage (they seem to have done away with the traditional radio state call letters but you can find it by searching that), Saturday night going into Sunday before Coast. If it’s not preempted by hockey. Astrology. That’s the third thing the ruling elites believe. I win. All hail the Lord of the World.

An even loner voice in the wilderness really shouldn’t be so all alone, but apparently is. Clyde Lewis’s Ground Zero Live on Portland’s KXL has an opening that seems intended to promote Gary Bell’s A View from Space, for some reason, Clyde Lewis seems to know a little about a lot of parapolitical and paranormal topics, the show is usually good radio, in the sense that there is intrigue and interest and the audience is sucked up into it, and yet... Clyde Lewis seems to exist in some sort of vacuum. As an example, he spent much of the summer congratulating himself for breaking the “Baltic UFO/NSO” story just prior to that, i.e., this summer or spring, but Linda Moulton Howe, Bill Deagle and many many others spoke of it almost a year prior. And yet... Clyde Lewis was the first to get the Swedish captain of the salvage vessel on the air for a live interview. He even scooped the Palmgren of Red Ice, who had him on almost a month later. So his scoop is not a scoop, and yet it becomes a scoop. One senses Lewis has a subconscious mechanism isolating him from the larger world of paranormal radio, a psychological protective mechanism which serves him well. And yet... one of his latest shows (the podcast is SNAFU and can be posted after the actual broadcast by over a week) was advertised as being about Indred Cold, the alien fellow in Keel’s Mothman and Barker’s Silver Bridge, but Lewis kept trying to tie it in with his previous broadcast’s interview with Andy Colvin, and kept equating Cold with Charlie Manson, even calling him “a smiling man with a shiny bald head who will smile as he murders you.” This didn’t fit what I took away from Keel and Barker in any way, but then again, it doesn’t exactly bring to mind Charlie Manson either. I must’ve missed something. It is a very long show, but only really gripping in certain places.

More in league with Stench of Truth is a long-running program, also out of Austin, called Psiop Radio, with SMiles Lewis (no relation with Clyde, apparently) and Mack White. What they do is sort of a current events roundup featuring the stuff that interests them, and usually the news items have something to do with parapolitics, the paranormal or police state USA. Amid the news there is a lot of back and forth, friendly conversation but also real ideas about what it can possibly mean. The whole thing is conducted with understatement verging on the surreal, and SMiles and Mac both fit the image of people who know a lot more than they care to say just now. Unfortunately, the show, which used to be weekly, on Sundays, has all but disappeared with only two installments in the last 6 months or so. Both men are obviously involved in a lot of other projects, but my impression a few months ago was that this Octopi movement sweeping Amerika had them firmly held in its tentacles. (Does Alex Jones’s “false left/right paradigm” not apply all the more to the twin protest movements, the Tea Party coopted by right-wing republicans Sarah Palin and Dick Armee, and the Octopi Wallstreet thing, run and ruined by “consensus” lead by equaller-than-thou idiots, as well as intense involvement by Holeland Sick-you-re-a-T, DoD and N$A?)

SMiles Lewis has reportedly been doing alternative internet stuff for ages, and Radio Misterioso’s Greg Bishop recently got tired of killradio and moved to one of SMile’s servers for his live broadcast on Sundays. The live thing, which is usually a telephone conversation with several participants, with Greg Bishop putting microphones to cell-phones and adjusting volumes and asking “can you hear me now?” for the first ten minutes, can be downloaded in semi-edited form usually about a week later from the radiomisterioso.com website, which has links to numerous past shows extending back over the decades with some very notable and even important figures in ufology and the study of the paranormal. The semi-edited version (I’ve never heard the show live) has an extremely corny and funny intro from Forbidden Planet or Plan 9 or somesuch, which sets the general tone (carnival atmosphere) and the lack of belief inherent in what follows.

Bishop has (I understand) been involved in UFO research and thinking since the mid-1980s at least and long had a ‘zine called The Excluded Middle. He was also somehow involved with Gene Stein’s Paracast for some time. He knows a lot of people and you get the sense he remembers just about every UFO case there ever was when he’s engaged with guests, although he never seems to show off his knowledge. Instead, he brings the sort of “fireside chat” feeling to his conversations that Rense attempts but doesn’t quite achieve. But Misterioso is part of an inner clique, or inner sanctum, of internet radio ufology that is just as much about the people involved in ufology as it is about UFOs. In fact it’s more about the people: the good, the bad, the indifferent, the hucksters and showmen and the “serious investigators,” without a great deal of moral distinction drawn between the categories, although, as is universal in ufology, everyone on Misterioso seems to agree that ufology is fucked because the people are so fucked up. Perhaps that illustrates the power of negative thinking, but Bishop’s show is usually interesting, and he seems to know whereof he speaks. The only problem is it seems to look backwards, very little new is aired but lots of arcane information about past intrigues is passed along to listeners, although I’m not qualified to judge the value of that information and do not know most of the intrigues.

Another inner sanctum among sancta of ufology is Gene Steinberg’s The Paracast, oddly enough carried on Ted’s Genesis network. Steinberg seems to have been around BEFORE Long John Nebel got paranormal radio cooking. He seems to have been personal friends or enemies with everyone from the 1890s onward involved in tracking down those mystery zeppelins. Again, the focus is more on the people and places and milestones of ufology than UFOs or current events, although new books do come up for ridicule, especially a recent book trying to resurrect the suspension of disbelief in the Aztec, New Mexico crash. Jim Mosely of Saucer Smear, a friend of Gray Barker’s, seems to be a regular guest. Steinberg’s current co-host is a bright young man whose name escapes me, and is only guilty of complimenting certain guests a little too robustly. Perhaps as a concession to Ted’s gold business, one of the Paracast’s intercommercial soundbites goes: “You’re listening to the Paracast, the Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio!” They sell mugs and t-shirts, and sometimes Mac computers get a good word, but this is obviously an underfunded labor of love driven by the determination of Steinberg.

***

Most of the UFO-related shows have long ago passed the point where it was verbotten to question the ETH (Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis), so much so that the semi-derogatory phrase “nuts-and-bolts” used to denigrate mechanical UFOs has itself gone out of fashion. There isn’t any consensus at all in the field, but there does seem to be a majority opinion, at least among the spokespeople, self-declared or otherwise, that the various fields of the paranormal impinge on one another. Ghosts appear with Grays, Whitley Strieber says. Strange pixie lights float around Bigfoot. UFOs and USOs hover near active anomaly areas in the Bermuda Triangle. The “psychic dimension,” or what Timothy Leary might more simply call setting and expectation, the individual perception filtered through cultural lenses of SOME objective phenomena, seems to be generally acknowledged now. Adam Gorightly freely admits he saw his first UFO on acid, and that he saw it when he thought, wow, wouldn’t it be neat to see one of those?, and one appeared.

There is no unified paranormal field theory, none that I know of, and none that I’ve heard mooted on paranormal radio, that ties it all together. There is no King Bigfoot in a mothership in geostationary over the Bermuda Triangle or Tesseract conducting craft via fifth-dimensional vortex/torsion physics. There is just a general acknowledgement that there are overlappings, things aren’t cut and dried, and musings and broodings over what it all means.

There are more shows, such as Strieber’s Dreamland, and semi-shows, such as Linda Moulton Howe’s Earthfiles reports and assorted interviews, and regular guests, such as Widener, the film director who deconstructs Kubrick’s films to alchemical treatises and finds in the Shining that mankind never stepped on the Moon, or at least, did not in the summer of 1969 when he was supposed to. There is Richard G. Hoaxland who can find an alien spaceport in a single pixel, and always does. There is “doctor of patristics” Joseph Farrell, an author who does a lot of paranormal radio interviews, and knows about the secret space program, and the Nazis in space. There is Dr. Sauder, the specialist and researcher on underground and undersea bases who fled to Ecuador long before J. P. Assange holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London (and what a stupid thing to do, when he could almost swim to Ireland, and why doesn’t Gary McKinnon get a clue and do it right?). There are too many shows to mention, but there is one more I ought to get around to: Strange Universe, on americanfreedomradio.com, hosted by Sean David Morton. It should be bad, just like Clyde Lewis’s Ground Zero should be, but it’s not. Morton makes all the wrong claims: that he is a bona fides investigative journalist, unlike most alt radio hosts, because he worked for Geraldo Rivera, or Maury Povich, or someone, for several years. There is too much ego, too much bravado, and still, it’s good. He’s on hiatus and in Europe where’s he’s travelling with that annoying lady from Camelot, Cassedy. His girlfriend Melissa is doing the show while he’s gone. Except the shows have become erratic. There must be great pressures at work, hopefully it will all work out for the couple and the man’s radio career. But there are too many shows, I certainly don’t know them all, and I don’t remember all the ones I do know. So that ends the list as such for now.

Now, one interesting thing I’ve noticed is how topics pass from the fringe of paranormal radio to the mainsteam thereof. Assuming Coast is the mainstream, in the month of August, 2012, Misterioso did a program which touched upon a project to conjure a hitherto non-existent spirit, provisionally called Philip. Within a week or two the same topic appeared on Coast. The same thing happened with a Paracast topic in the same period. I noticed it much earlier when Red Ice topics began appearing on Coast. Apparently the “Coast Family” (is it anything like the Love Israel Family, or the Manson Family?) has very big ears, and hears much of what goes on in the field, the rustling of the field mice as they live out their small lives gleaning leftover grains from the last harvest, locked out by self-imposed exile from the Bosom of Art Bell, and largely from the right-wing patriotic airwaves, because they’re just too damned weird.

I remember one theory about the Grays which held they are either our future selves, or an advanced alien race which has, a la Spock and the Vulcans, long extinguished the passions which writhe in our chests, and being so dispassionate, they really get a kick out of exposure to our strong emotions, so keep hanging around, like crack addicts. I guess it’s the same idea as the vampire sucking life essence, or the parasitical spirits in Scientology afflicting us, or demonic forces thriving off our negative emotions and especially fear, just dressed in a new costume. If you apply this to paranormal radio, then Coast is that distant alien relative returning from an orbit around an expiring sun, seeking under every speck of dust inspiration for next week’s list of topics. Or maybe the Phillip story, and the other ones I noticed they cribbed, were just too good to pass up. In fact there’s more than enough jade, as in jaded, to go around throughout paranormal radio large and small, and a fair amount of borrowing at all levels. In the wider sphere of alternative and patriotic radio, there is an almost unconscious transmission of right-wing political values, so at least the incestuous plagiarism inside paranormal radio proper seems conscious, one point in its favor.

Another thing about paranormal radio which almost doesn’t need saying is that there is an intellectual laziness at work, especially regarding conspiracy topics, according to which it somehow allowable to make sweeping generalizations and connections supposedly connecting one figure or group with another, usually to demonstrate some sort of evil or satanic affiliation. Thus you might occasionally still here sincere voices on paranormal/alternative radio repeating that the late Robert Anton Wilson was the Grand Master of the Illuminati, rather than what he really was (a sophisticated leptoufologist who could’ve helped Art Bell out with all the rabbits at his transmitter farm way back when).

A few years back, in a local paper, in a small Eastern European country, I read this article about a group of clairvoyants, bio-field workers, psychics and so on lobbying law makers for a body to regulate their trade. They said there were all too many charlatans in the field. There needed to be a body, made up of qualified judges, to protect the public and the reputation of their industry from false claims and the damage wrought by these interlopers, these poseurs with no real ability or talent making a living off the public’s gullibility.

At the time, I probably thought what a field day the Amazing Randi would have with such a news item. Now I’m no longer sure quite what to make of it, because, first off, I don’t really care whether that guy on KRAB radio in the 1970s really had built a three-dimensional television system with off-the-shelf components which the US Navy stole. What interested me was the idea. That it was possible. And I’m certain it was, it was at least that, possible, in the 1970s. There is 3-D television now, I hear, and some of it doesn’t involve wearing special glasses, neither polarized nor with green and red lenses.

Second, I don’t believe these psychics and tarot card readers were really any more talented or honest than the charlatans they were lobbying against. They just wanted to protect their incomes, to legitimize themselves, and perhaps land a job on the commission of judges paid for by the state to keep the bad psychics out.

Third, I don’t think the field of ufology is made up almost exclusively of cranks, nor that the so-called serious researchers really know anything more than the wishful thinkers. Neither do I think the psychos and fringe on the fringe of already fringe ufology are less likely to come up with hypotheses approximating the truth than those who appear more rational, more scientific in their method, more careful in their positions.

Fourth, I don’t think ufology or the paranormal needs an influx of capital S Science to shed light on whatever the heck’s going on. Because science from the beginning has been involved and studying the paranormal, from the museum in Alexandria to the early astronomers to Boyle in Scotland. They’ve all been a bunch of wild-eyed Forteans, even before Fort was born. Because formal Science funded by the gubmint and administered by commissions is not going to get any closer to anything than the wishful-thinking fringe in fringe ufology. Because there is no such thing as Science with a capital S: anything they can do, you can do. It’s a method of constructing testable hypotheses and testing them, then adopting them or rejecting them. You CAN do this, in your garage, or wherever. The lack of physical evidence in ufology is not a barrier to coming up with new theories and seeing how they fit the testimonies (which are evidence, incidentally). That Science with a capital S as a caste, a priesthood, has decided as a social class to ignore the paranormal and UFOs for the present time only means there is some intellectual cowardice at work, not that ufology and paranormal studies need to crash the party, which isn’t that fun anyway. Of course it would be HELPFUL if the US govt “disclosed” what they’re holding, but that’s not crucial to finding the answers, at least not as far as I know. Perhaps ET has spilled its guts to the Nixon administration, for example, and it’s all on file, and ET will never spill its guts again, because it’s been done and there is a paper trail. In that case, disclosure might disclose something we couldn’t learn otherwise. It is interesting that Carl Sagan started out talking as if UFOs were real, and then sort of crossed over to the Campe d’Bunq, and it’s interesting that Manley Hall thought the UFOs were US govt issued, and that Hawking recently got cold feet about contact, but these are peripheral issues, almost trivial, in the same league as Contact star Jodi Foster praising Leni Riefenstahl in the New York Times, saying she was going to Germany to meet her. Interesting, but not central.

Warren G. Harding  campaigned for president of the United States in 1920 by promising a “return to normalcy” for the American people, still reeling from the unprecedented horrors—machine guns, trench warfare, chemical warfare—of the Great War. What paranormal radio needs is a return to paranormalcy, a return to discussing the weird, to examining the fringe, to entertaining strange and perhaps new ideas, and the courage to state one’s political beliefs, if relevant, openly and without fearing the censure of right or left-wing nuts posing as broadcasting colleagues. The Mystic Barber, Otis T. Carr’s UFO company, the Shaver Mystery—these were probably perceived as hoaxers and hoaxes even by Nebel and Palmer, but that wasn’t the point. Keel embellished to prove a point or make a better story, Barker probably did the same, and that’s not the point either. The point was to entertain the idea, even for second, and to convey that suspension of disbelief to the audience so they could partake of same. Art Bell could do this as well. Wild Bill Cooper was capable of the sort of speculative algebra, but was all very serious about things, believing what he believed until... he no longer believed it. And the goal is not merely entertainment, although that suffices during dry periods, rather it is to open up to the listener new possibilities for further speculation and action. Of course if I knew how to do this, I’d be doing paranormal radio, but all I am is a listener out there in paranormal radioland, the silent majority, the audient void, the Listener orbiting geostationarily above the North Pole in a 20,000-year-old-or-greater black satellite, taking notes, comparing statistics, sending reports home. It’s entirely possible.

Personal disclosure: All of the statements above are purely my own impressions and opinions and many of them are based on very limited information. I probably got a lot of names wrong. I probably underestimated some good programs and praised some stinkers.

Further personal disclosure: I have never met Kenn Thomas but I bought the latest edition of his Maury Island book on amazon, twice. The footnotes aren’t as good as he claimed on some radio program, and there are many typos, but it’s worth getting, I say as someone born in Tacoma, where most of the “action” takes place. I have not read Greg Bishop’s book or Sean David Morton’s, or Art Bell’s for that matter.

Final disclosure: I have had three paranormal experiences in my life, including seeing a ghost (of a woman murdered at the place of the sighting, I learned later), seeing little people or grays alone at night who then disappeared, and seeing a UFO that vanished in a greenish haze as I watched it. At the time of each of these, all I did was shrug and go “huh? what was that, that was weird,” and only realized what happened years later when I thought back on them. Also, I might have had a small piece of pumice materialize and fall on the hearth in my living room once, but am not sure about that one, and it never repeated itself.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

JFK's mistress was assassinated by the CIA?


Book claims JFK's mistress was assassinated by the CIA 'because she knew too much about his assassination'
19 April 2012
Full Article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132334/JFKs-mistress-Mary-Pinchot-assassinated-CIA-knew-much.html

The suspicious death of one of President John F. Kennedy's mistresses just months after his death has sparked numerous conspiracy theories.

The latest version posits that socialite Mary Pinchot Meyer, a beautiful divorcee who was close friends with the Kennedys and is widely known for having a lengthy affair with the playboy President, was shot in a cover-up operation by the CIA.

A new book alleges that, in her preoccupation with her lover's assassination and ensuing personal investigation, she may have gotten so close to the 'truth' that the CIA found her to be a threat.

As a result, agency operatives staged a shooting to make it look like she died due to a sexual assault that turned violent.

Whether or not the theory is true, there are a number of questionable components to the story of the months leading up to her death on October 12, 1964.

Her ex-husband, Cord Meyer, was a CIA agent himself and the couple were card-carrying members of Georgetown's starry social set, which included then-Senator John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline.

The couples became close friends, along with Mary's sister Antoinette (who went by Tony) and her husband Ben Bradlee, who was a bureau chief for Newsweek but later went on to be the managing editor of The Washington Post.

Another couple that they spent time with was Mary's Vassar classmate Cicely d'Autremont and her husband James Angleton, who was the chief of the counter surveillance for the CIA.

A book by Peter Janney, called Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision of World Peace, the author claims that the the socialite would often bring marijuana and LSD to her trysts with the President.

During their conversations while on these hallucinogens, Ms Pinchot Meyer reportedly tried to appeal to Mr Kennedy's pacifist nature and urged him to seek peaceful solutions to such worldwide crises like the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis.

At the time, LSD was not illegal, and many, including Harvard professor Timothy Leary, advocated its use because they believed it helped people expand their knowledge base.

Mr Janney's book is not the first to draw conclusions between Ms Pinchot Meyer's friendship with Mr Leary and her intentions with her relationship with Mr Kennedy.

He goes on to say that she was later murdered by the CIA, who he believes organized the assassination of the President in an effort to stop him from preventing violent escalation that they wanted in the Cold War...



Monday, January 30, 2012

Me and Lee: How I came to know, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald

(2010 Trine Day, LLC) by Judyth Vary Baker
http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2011/12/19/me-and-lee-harvey-oswald

Book Review
Stuart Bramhall
Dec 19th, 2011

Part I

This review is divided into two parts. Part I discusses Baker and her background. Part II delves into the personality of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Me and Lee is a memoir by the only surviving member of a top secret New Orleans research team (described by Ed Haslam in Dr Mary’s Monkey – see http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2011/12/15/the-hidden-manmade-history-of-the-cancer-epidemic/ ) which attempted, in 1963, to create a biologic warfare agent to assassinate Castro. It has a forward by Haslam and an afterward by longtime assassination researcher Jim Marrs. It’s also extensively footnoted and cross referenced with photos, newspaper clippings and other documents from Baker’s personal records, Warren Commission testimony, and other records from the JFK archives.

A science prodigy, Judyth Vary Baker was only 19 when she joined this project. The major strength of Lee and Me is the author’s ability to capture the naive idealism behind Baker’s determination to “conquer” cancer. As much a character study as an expose, the book portrays to perfection the blind, headstrong idealism typical of many young people manipulated into joining off-the-books intelligence-security activities.

Baker’s High School Cancer Research

It was obvious from an early age that Baker had a brilliant mind. Thanks to her extreme precociousness and heavy government emphasis on science education (to “catch up” with the Soviet space program), her high school provided her special premises to convert a science fair project into a long term study of techniques to accelerate cancer growth in mice. Thanks to Florida Senator George Smathers, she came to the attention of national cancer researchers. This led to her recruitment, after one year of college, by the prominent anti-Castro anticommunist Dr Alton Ochsner of Tulane University. Baker’s role was to assist cancer researcher Dr Mary Sherman in a project that was sold to Baker as a an effort to develop a vaccine against SV-40. The latter was a monkey virus which contaminated the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines given to children between 1955 and 1963.

Baker arrives in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 and discovers she will be conducting research in CIA pilot David Ferrie’s apartment, rather Dr Sherman’s lab. Moreover her assignment isn’t to work on a vaccine, but to help create a virus capable of causing “galloping” cancer. Her job consists of harvesting fifty or more mice every week that have been injected with SV-40 viruses mutated by exposure to radiation. She then grinds up the most aggressive tumors, suspends them in calf serum medium and centrifuges them to extract the viruses. She then transports them to Dr Sherman’s lab to be re-exposed to high intensity radiation.

Baker’s Relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald

Baker is introduced to Lee Harvey Oswald during this period because he serves as her escort, riding the bus with her to and from work. In addition to her lab research, Ochsner asks her to take a cover job at the Reily Coffee Company, where her immediate boss is a former FBI agent who is also heavily involved with the anti-Castro movement. Oswald also seems to be instrumental in persuading Baker to overcome her scruples about her biological warfare research, by revealing there is a right-wing/Mob/CIA/anti-Castro Cuban plot to kill JFK that might be derailed if they succeed in removing Castro from power. The line Oswald, Ferrie and Sherman give her that if Castro is assassinated, the different factions will start jockeying for power over Cuba and this will split the coalition.

Baker’s cover at Reily Coffee Company is that of secretary, though her main role is to ensure that Oswald, who also has a cover job at Reilly’s, gets his time card clocked in and out when he’s in the field. Both spend most of their time at their top secret jobs. Baker, who is mainly at Ferrie’s apartment dissecting mice, is never totally clear what Oswald’s assignment is. She describes him as getting regular payments from the FBI and CIA, as well as unemployment checks from a former job in Texas. He seems to be a kind of errand boy, both for the CIA and the Mafia. Oswald has relatives with the Mob and introduces Baker to New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. The Mafia has lost lucrative Cuban casinos in the revolution and is an eager participant in various conspiracies to get rid of Castro. Oswald also introduces her to Jacob “Sparky” Rubenstein (also known as Jack Ruby), who Oswald has known from childhood.

Part II

I have been reading JFK assassination literature since 1990. Of all the books I have read, Lee and Me provides the most insight into Oswald’s personality and his knowledge of the assassination conspiracy. As Baker portrays him, he comes across as an immature, bookish geek who liked to check out James Bond spy thrillers and quote from obscure literary works. He admitted to Baker that he was ashamed of hitting his wife Marina (for insulting his manhood) but seemed unable to stop. He also had strong personal views about civil rights and routinely sat in the rear colored section of buses. In 1963, the South was still militantly segregated. I can see how this might have been extremely irritating to his right wing, racist superiors.

Oswald’s CIA Role in New Orleans

According to Baker, he was very much aware that his CIA handlers didn’t trust him following his return from the Soviet Union. He told Baker that fake defectors were never fully trusted, owing to the possibility they might have became double agents. Oswald was never given the name of the CIA officer running the anti-Castro project he was working for. Oswald only knew him as Mr. B and that he was CIA station chief in Mexico. According to Oswald, this pattern of being assigned a number of minor, unrelated tasks without being clear who he was working for was typical for agents suspected of being “dangles” (double agents). Baker states he only learned his superior’s real name a few days before the assassination. In their last phone conversation, Oswald revealed the man’s name was David Atlee Phillips. In 1963 Phillips was CIA Chief of Cuban Operations. In 1954 he played a major role in the CIA coup against Arbenz in Guatemala.

Baker mentions that Oswald helped to organize a shipment of weapons smuggled into New Orleans for the anti-Castro Cubans the CIA was training as paramilitaries. She also talks about an assignment in which Oswald posed as a pro-Castro member of Fair Trade for Cuba to collect names of Castro sympathizers to turn over to the FBI. He was also identified as the agent who would smuggle the fatal viruses into Cuba. This meant that Baker had to train him to change the culture medium necessary to keep them alive.

Baker is Fired from the Project

Eventually Sherman, Ferrie and Baker succeed in isolating a tumor virus capable of producing “galloping” cancer (killing them in weeks, rather than months) in mice. They then inject it into marmoset, rhesus and African green monkeys, where it proves to be equally virulent. In August 1963, Clay Shaw (the CIA contractor district attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted in 1967 for his involvement in the JFK assassination), Oswald and Ferrie transport the virus to the East Louisiana State Mental Hospital, to inject it into a “volunteer” from the Angola Penitentiary. Baker is initially told the patient already suffers from terminal cancer. She subsequently learns that he’s perfectly healthy. It also becomes clear from the blood samples she’s asked to analyze for cancer cells that numerous volunteers have been injected with the lethal virus.

Baker writes an angry memo informing Ochsner that this type of experimentation on human subjects is unethical. He immediately terminates her from the project and threatens her life if she has any further contact with Oswald. By this point the two of them have become lovers. Although Baker returns to Florida with her husband, she and Oswald make plans to leave their respective spouses and elope to Mexico after Oswald smuggles the fatal virus into Cuba.

Oswald Realizes He is Being Set Up

Oswald, meanwhile learns that his assignment is changed, that he is only to transport the virus to Mexico City and hand it off to a second courier. When his contact fails to show in Mexico City, he makes a desperate attempt to get a Cuban visa to deliver the virus himself, which is denied. He is now genuinely concerned about his own safety. The information he possesses makes him a clear liability to the people he works for unless they have a specific use for him. He becomes convinced, at this point, that they are trying to set him up to look like a pro-Castro agent in the plot against JFK.

Despite the promise he has been given to be transferred to Mexico City, his superiors order him to return to Dallas to spy on “right wing nuts” interested in killing Kennedy. He and Baker continue to maintain phone contact, using pay phones and a complex phone wheel they use to synchronize call scheduling. On October 19th, Oswald is invited to join the assassination conspiracy – planned for three alternative locations – Miami (a right-wing informant blows the whistle on the Miami plot and Kennedy forgoes a motorcade to be transported by helicopter), Chicago and Dallas. Oswald plays along, believing he can pass details of the conspiracy to trusted FBI agents who can foil the assassination attempts.

Following the records release under the 1992 JFK Act, it was learned that a tip-off regarding an assassination threat caused the secret service to cancel JFK’s November 2nd visit to Chicago. Oswald told Baker back in 1963 that he was responsible for this tip off. On November 16, he told her that he also passed information regarding the Dallas assassination plot to an FBI contact. Oswald’s wife Marina later confirmed this in a letter to the Chairman of the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. According to an FBI clerk Garrison interviewed during his investigation, the FBI contact telexed the information to the Dallas FBI field office, where it mysteriously vanished.

*To protect her five children, Baker kept silent about her involvement with Oswald until her last child left home in 1998, she broke her silence. Her revelations on the Internet provoked a firestorm of controversy, both from pro-conspiracy researchers and Warren Commission diehards, who accuse her of fabricating her story from the wealth of detail on the JFK assassination circulating on the Internet.

Edward Haslam, author of Dr Mary’s Monkey (see link), has exhaustively investigated her story and defends her for the following reasons:

He has confirmed her identity and her claims about doing cancer research in high school through the microfilm file at the Bradenton Herald, while employed there managing their market research.

He has sighted the W2 slip she provides for her period of employment at the Reily Coffee Company and confirms that it’s genuine.

He has personally interviewed Anna Lewis, wife of CIA agent David Lewis, who worked with Oswald, Jack Martin and Guy Bannister in New Orleans’ anti-Castro movement. She confirms that Baker and Oswald were romantically involved in 1963.
Baker blogs, with long time assassination researcher Jim Fetzer, at:

http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/

Friday, December 23, 2011

NY Times’ Umbrella Man Exposed


Russ Baker on Nov 28, 2011
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/11/28/ny-times%E2%80%99-umbrella-man-exposed

More and more, one is struck by the extent to which the New York Times is disassociated from reality. One might judge the paper’s publishing of official falsehoods as the occasional and accidental byproduct of the pressure to produce so many articles, were it not for the consistency and rigidly sclerotic way it loyally foists patently untrue material upon the public.

I say this as someone who still reads the Times, still has friends working there, and still retains some isolated pockets of fondness for it.

But it is hard to overlook these constant transgressions. As we note here at WhoWhatWhy, these range from ignoring the real reasons for the invasion of Libya to apologizing for fraud perpetrated by its favorite Afghanistan propagandist (and the author of Three Cups of Tea). It surely includes the paper’s failure to share with its readers overwhelming and constantly refreshed documentation of an organized coup that resulted in the death of President John F. Kennedy and the end of meaningful reform in America. I addressed that latter issue in the article, “NY Times’ Ostrich Act on JFK Assassination Getting Old.”
Far from proper journalistic curiosity, the paper sees its job as enforcing orthodoxy, and shutting down consideration of anything untoward. According to the New York Times’s peculiar brand of journalism, coups and plots happen with regularity abroad, but never, never, in the United States.

It is important to include the pejorative phrase “conspiracy theorist” in every article, even acknowledging concern about the health of democracy in America. It is important to have a good laugh at the expense of those poor souls who trouble themselves inquiring into the darker precincts of this country’s history.

So it is with the 48th anniversary of Kennedy’s death. Instead of assigning a single reporter to scrutinize the hundreds or thousands of meaningful, documented facts that do suggest more than “the lone nut did it,” the Times gets busy with the disinformation business.

Here are two Times “contributions” on this occasion:

UMBRELLA MAN

On the 48th anniversary of Kennedy’s murder, the Times ran an op-ed piece and short film by documentary maker Errol Morris about another man’s research into “umbrella man.” Umbrella Man is the nickname for a fellow who famously brought an umbrella on a sunny day for the president’s visit to Dallas November 22, 1963, stood on the “grassy knoll,” and, just as the president’s car passed, he opened the umbrella and pumped it in the air. Many have speculated as to the significance, or lack of significance, of this strange behavior. Some wonder if Umbrella Man was part of the assassination scenario, perhaps signaling to shooters. There was even the September 1975 Senate intelligence committee testimony by Charles Senseney, a contract weapons designer for the CIA, that the agency had perfected an umbrella that shoots undetectable poison darts that can immobilize and kill, raising questions about whether this was in play that day. (See P. 168 in the Senate committee testimony, where Senseney explains specifically about the agency’s use of a toxin and the ability to fire it from a modified umbrella.)

The self-described Umbrella Man, Louie Steven Witt, came forward to offer his testimony in 1978, or three years after the CIA expert provided this now forgotten testimony on umbrellas as weapon. Umbrella Man came forward just as a special House Select Committee on Assassinations was focusing on the possibility of a conspiracy (which, it concluded in its final report…was likely.)

The counsel for the Assassinations Committee, remarkably, does not mention the prior Senate testimony by the CIA weapons expert that such an umbrella device did exist, and instead quotes a more shaky claim by an “assassinations critic” regarding such a device.

Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. Witt, exhibit 406 is a copyrighted diagram

drawn by assassinations critic Robert B. Cutler which shows two

umbrellas with rocket and flechette attachments. Mr. Witt, do you

know what a flechette is?

Mr. WITT. I do now. I did not prior to our interview yesterday

evening.

Mr. GENZMAN. Did the umbrella in your possession on November

22, 1963, contain a flechette, or a rocket or a dart?

Mr. WITT, No, It did not.

Mr. GENZMAN. Has exhibit 405, the umbrella, ever contained -a

flechette, rocket. or dart?

Mr. WITT. No. Not since it’s been in my possession.

Mr. GENZMAN. Did the umbrella in your possession on November

1963; contain a gun or weapon of any sort?

438

Mr. WITT. No.

Mr. GENZMAN. Has exhibit 405 ever contained a gun or weapon

of any sort?

Mr. WITT. This umbrella?

Mr. GENZMAN. Yes.

Mr. WITT. No.

Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Witt.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.


Is the Times at all interested in the credibility of this purported umbrella-bearer? Absolutely not.

Instead, the Morris video presents the idea that sometimes, the most ridiculous scenarios are the truth. And so it presents the ridiculous, and asks us to believe it. Cutting to the chase, the man seen opening an umbrella comes forward to explain why he did it. Reason: in 1963, he was still mad at Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler, and held JFK’s father to blame as US ambassador to England in that period. Chamberlain was famed for carrying an umbrella. So—get this—Umbrella Man, hoping to make a statement about what happened in the late 1930s to JFK in 1963, pumped his umbrella at the time the fatal shots were fired…only for this obscure purpose.

The Times passes the responsibility for this travesty to Morris, who passes it along to Josiah Thompson, a former Navy underwater demolitions expert turned Yale philosophy professor turned private investigator, who appears on-screen to ruminate about “Umbrella Man.” He is happy to accept the Chamberlain story as “delightful weirdness.”

Watching this, one gets the sense that Thompson believes there was no conspiracy in JFK’s death. But what the Times implies with this little piece is false. In fact, Josiah Thompson is known for documenting the exact opposite. He wrote a serious investigative book in 1967, “Six Seconds in Dallas,” full of evidence and specifics, in which he concluded there was a conspiracy to kill JFK—involving three different shooters. But the New York Times is not interested in that, only in this new, droll dismissal of another piece of the puzzle.

I called Thompson to ask him about the Morris video, and he pronounced himself delighted with it. I asked him how he knew that the man who came forward to identify himself as Umbrella Man and present the Neville Chamberlain story was actually the same man in the fuzzy photo of many years earlier. By way of explanation, he mentioned hearing a story from a well-respected JFK researcher who in turn had heard that Umbrella Man had told his dentist years earlier that he was umbrella man. Pressing Thompson, I learned that the man who came forward as Umbrella Man never provided proof that he was in fact the man with the umbrella. Even the dentist story is third, fourth, or perhaps fifth hand, not verified by Thompson or his researcher friend. All of which proves nothing, and all of which suggests that maybe, just maybe, the man’s improbable, “delightful” story of Neville Chamberlain is, indeed, fabricated.

Just because Errol Morris is a master of the documentary art does not make him any kind of authority on what should be the province of careful investigators. Just because a story is absurd does not make it real, or “delightful”, as the Times video would like us to consider—and many did, with thousands emailing the Times piece to friends. This is something well understood by the game-players of the covert operations house of mirrors: the jesuitical contortions that can be made to twist any credible scenario.
Here are some things you should know about the man who came forward to identify himself as Umbrella Man and tell this ludicrous Neville Chamberlain story:

His account of his activities that day don’t track with what Umbrella Man actually did, raising questions as to whether this man who volunteered to testify to the assassination inquiry is even the real umbrella-bearer, or someone whose purpose was to end inquiries into the matter.
The man who came forward, Louie Steven Witt, was a young man at the time of Kennedy’s death. How many young men in Dallas in 1963 even knew what Neville Chamberlain had done a quarter-century before?

In 1963, Witt was an insurance salesman for the Rio Grande National Life Insurance company, which anchored the eponymous Rio Grande Building in downtown Dallas. It’s an interesting building. Among the other outfits housed in the building was the Office of Immigration and Naturalization—a place Lee Harvey Oswald visited repeatedly upon his return from Russia, ostensibly to deal with matters concerning the immigration status of his Russian-born wife, Marina. Another occupant of the Rio Grande Building was the US Secret Service, so notably lax in its protection of Kennedy that day, breaking every rule of security on every level.
A major client of Rio Grande was the US military, to which it provided insurance.

It’s worth considering the roles of military-connected figures on the day of the assassination. These include Dallas Military Intelligence unit chief Jack Crichton operating secretly from an underground communications bunker; Crichton’s providing a translator who twisted Marina Oswald’s statement to police in a way that implicated her husband; and members of military intelligence forcing their way into the pilot car of Kennedy’s motorcade, which inexplicably ground to a halt in front of the Texas School Book Depository (where Lee Harvey Oswald’s employer, a high official with the local military-connected American Legion, managed to find a “job” for Oswald at a time when his company was otherwise seasonally laying off staff.) Oh, and it’s worth contemplating JFK’s titanic, if under-reported, struggle with top Pentagon officials over how the US should interact with Russia, Cuba, and the rest of the world. You can read more about all this in my book Family of Secrets.

Is this concatenation of facts too crazy to consider? More crazy than that Neville Chamberlain story?

THE JACK AND JACKIE LOVE STORY

Not content with having Morris, who is no Kennedy expert, put out this misleading video on Umbrella Man, the Times earlier featured Morris’s book review of Stephen King’s novel imagining Lee Harvey Oswald. So now you have a man who knows little about the real story, getting people to read the imaginings of one who also knows little of the real story. Another way to look at this is that the New York Times is really, really interested in an occult novelist’s take on the death of a president, but just totally uninterested itself in looking into that death.

You must read Errol Morris’s review of King’s book, and please explain to me what he is talking about, because I have no idea. One of the few things that registered at all from this confusing mess is a comment about Jack and Jackie:

King has said that he struggled with the idea for this book for more than 30 years. One can see why. In fiction, we can decide who did or did not kill Kennedy. Writer’s choice (and King chooses). But he pays his debts to history in other ways — by showing the machine and, at the same time, the simplest human knots, the love stories behind history: Sadie and George[characters in the novel], Jack and Jackie.


Um, “the love stories behind history…Jack and Jackie”?

This is part and parcel of the Times’s approach: to maintain a feeble, People Magazine-like focus on the JFK-Jackie Camelot love story—which never actually existed. Anyone who has read any of the books featuring interviews with close friends of the couple know that the marriage was a political match for the reticent JFK, never for a minute a fairy tale romance, and that by 1963 the duo could barely stand to be in each other’s presence. If this is news to you, come out of your New York Times cave and read….practically anything else. (One worthwhile account—including Jackie explicitly ignoring JFK’s request that, for appearances’ sake, the First Lady not take off to cruise on the yacht of the caddish Aristotle Onassis in the fall of 1963—can be found in Peter Evans’s book, Nemesis. By the way, Onassis hated—and I mean hated—the Kennedys; RFK had blocked a big Onassis business deal years earlier.)

Or read in Family of Secrets how, since childhood, Jackie had been a friend of George de Mohrenschildt, the “father figure” to Lee Harvey Oswald, or how, the night after de Mohrenschildt’s testimony to the Warren Commission, Oswald’s best friend was invited to dinner at Jackie’s mother’s house, along with the Machiavellian intriguer Allen Dulles, whom JFK had fired as CIA director and whom Johnson so shockingly appointed to the Warren Commission investigating Kennedy’s killing—a man who surely is at the top of most people’s lists of those behind the assassination.

If you appreciate these sorts of things, it is striking to learn that Onassis was a business partner in oil deals in the Caribbean prior to Castro’s revolution, with….Oswald’s best friend George de Mohrenschildt, and that Onassis’ brother-in-law was the cover employer of CIA coup plotter Al Ulmer, who just happened to be visiting the Dallas area the week of Nov 22 1963 from abroad.

So, please, can we get past this “love story” pabulum and at least do just a teensy bit of investigating these odd and flagrantly suggestive connections? Maybe they’re all odd coincidences, but at least they seem, intuitively, worth pursuing, at least as much as those “delightfully weird” Neville Chamberlain umbrella stories.

The real danger of a video like the one about the Umbrella Man is that it encourages people to stop questioning, stop investigating. Just laugh it all off. There’s no trouble here in the land of the free, the home of the brave. Nothing to see here, folks, move along, move along.

It’s time to stop treating the New York Times as the slightly daffy uncle who is hard of hearing. There’s something more insidious going on, and every single person who works there and refuses to care bears some responsibility. Ditto with the rest of the media, which still takes this institution as its guide on what to cover—and what not to uncover.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

The other Kennedy conspiracy

The assassination of Robert Kennedy never received the scrutiny it deserves
Lisa Pease
Monday, Nov 21, 2011
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/21/the_other_kennedy_conspiracy

Each November, the media recalls the assassination of President Kennedy and its attendant controversies. Rarely, however, is a second Kennedy anniversary acknowledged. On Nov. 20, 2011, Robert Kennedy — JFK’s brother and devoted political partner — would have turned 86 years old had he not also been assassinated. Although the mainstream media has been all but silent on this case, the facts scream out for a deeper investigation.

The story of Robert Kennedy’s assassination seems deceptively simple. After winning the California Democratic presidential primary on June 4, 1968, Sen. Robert Kennedy traversed a pantry at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. A young Palestinian Christian named Sirhan Sirhan pulled a gun and fired. Kennedy died roughly 25 hours later. Five others were wounded. Sirhan was tried and convicted. End of story, right?

Not so fast. A crime is like a jigsaw puzzle. You can’t solve the puzzle by forcing a piece where it doesn’t belong. The theory that Sirhan killed Kennedy is an ill-fitting piece not supported by the physical evidence. Here are some facts that are not in dispute.

Fact: The medical evidence showed that Kennedy was shot four times from behind from a distance of 1 to 6 inches. The fatal shot entered Kennedy from 1 inch behind Kennedy’s right ear.

Fact: All witnesses placed Sirhan in front of Kennedy. Not one witness put Sirhan’s gun muzzle closer than a foot to Kennedy, and most witnesses placed the muzzle about 3 feet away.

Based on these two facts alone, Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi wrote in his memoir, “Thus I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.”

Fact: Seven bullets were recovered from six pantry victims. Another bullet was lost in the ceiling space. Sirhan’s gun could only hold eight bullets. But an FBI agent photographed four additional “bullet holes” in the pantry. This so worried Los Angeles County officials that, nine years later, they asked the FBI essentially for a retraction, noting that if those were, in fact, “bullet holes,” as the bureau unequivocally stated, “We should certainly find out who else was firing.”

In recent years, an audiotape recorded by Stanislaw Pruszynski, a Polish reporter covering the 1968 presidential campaign for Canadian newspapers, resurfaced that supported the FBI’s finding. Sound engineer Philip Van Praag used sophisticated equipment to analyze the tape and found at least 12 shot sounds on the tape. He also found that two pairs of shots came too close together to have been fired from a single gun.

The evidence clearly points to at least two shooters that night in the Ambassador pantry. In addition to the physical evidence, multiple witnesses spotted other men with drawn guns in the pantry.

Fact: Richard Lubic, a televison producer, was standing behind Kennedy during the shooting. Lubic saw an arm to his right with a gun but could not see who was holding the gun. After Kennedy fell, Lubic knelt to help Kennedy and saw a security guard, Thane Eugene Cesar, with his gun drawn and pointing toward the floor. The Los Angeles Police Department later put enormous pressure on Lubic to change his story. Lubic was visited at home by LAPD investigators, who told him, “Don’t bring this up, don’t be talking about this.”

Fact: Donald Schulman, a young runner for a local TV station, claimed he saw security guard Cesar fire his gun. Schulman also told the LAPD he saw three guns in the pantry. (Some authors have mistakenly suggested Schulman wasn’t in the pantry, but LAPD records confirm that he was.)

Fact: Sandy Serrano, a Kennedy campaign volunteer, told NBC News reporter Sander Vanocur on live TV about seeing a young woman in a polka dot dress and a male companion who had passed her on a fire escape. The woman in the polka dot dress said, “We shot him, we shot him!” Serrano asked whom they shot. The woman said, “Senator Kennedy,” and ran off. A witness in the pantry, Vincent DiPierro, told the LAPD about a woman in a white dress with dark polka dots who seemed to be “holding” Sirhan just before the shooting.

Fact: The police were so interested in this “girl in the polka dot dress” that they issued an APB for her and specifically asked nearly all the witnesses interviewed whether they had seen anyone fitting her description. But when the story started to gain traction in the press, the LAPD declared that a blond girl on crutches in a bright green dress with yellow lemons dotting it was “the girl in the polka dot dress” and closed the book on this subject.

A new novel called “The Girl in the Polka Dot Dress” conjures an imaginary history for this illusory character. It’s a shame the novelist didn’t review the actual record, as the LAPD files suggest an even more provocative back story, which has not yet appeared in print, but will, when I finish the nonfiction book I’m writing about this case.

If one accepts the existing evidence, at least two people were firing bullets. And if two people were shooting, not only was there a conspiracy, it was such a sophisticated one that it has eluded prosecution for over 40 years.

The piece that has never fit has been Sirhan himself. Why did he never identify his co-conspirators? In addition, Sirhan has always claimed he had no memory of this crime. He had no idea why he shot Kennedy, nor did he remember writing in a notebook, over and over, “RFK must die.”

Could Sirhan have been hypnotized? I know how crazy this sounds to people who haven’t studied the history of mind control. It sounds like the stuff of Hollywood fiction. (On the other hand, where do you think Hollywood gets those stories? William Bryan, a renowned hypnotist who consulted on the making of the film “The Manchurian Candidate,” called a radio show shortly after Kennedy was shot to suggest Sirhan had been hypnotically programmed.)

Several witnesses, including some of the Los Angeles police officers who interacted with Sirhan immediately after the shooting, commented on Sirhan’s preternatural calmness before, during and after the shooting. LAPD officer Randolph Adair said in later years, “The guy was real confused. It was like it didn’t exactly hit him what he had done. He had a black, glassed-over look on his face — like he wasn’t in complete control of his mind at the time.”

Both Sirhan’s defense team and the prosecution tried and failed to get Sirhan to recall shooting Kennedy under hypnosis. Both, however, presumed his guilt and tried to get him to “admit” it while in a trance, which Sirhan never did.

Sirhan’s current attorney, William Pepper, recently had an expert hypnotize Sirhan in an open-ended fashion, during which Sirhan finally recalled that the touch of a girl in the pantry sent Sirhan into a mode where he thought he was firing at a target on a range. Could the girl in a polka dot dress DiPierro saw “holding” Sirhan moments before the shooting began have triggered his act?

On Channel 4 in the U.K. last month, hypnotist Derren Brown tested this scenario on his TV show “The Experiments.” He took a highly hypnotizable subject and, over a two-month period, trained him to shoot and “kill” a celebrity. The subject, however, did not know this was the experiment’s goal. Brown gave his subject a two-part trigger that would send him into a hypnotic state: a polka dot pattern and a unique cellphone ring tone. When he saw this pattern and heard the tone, the young man was taught to touch his head to focus his concentration, and then fire a gun at a target on a range. But his final test occurred not at a range, but at a taping of British entertainer Stephen Fry’s show. As the subject watched the show from a back row, a hidden camera showed a girl in a polka dot dress enter and sit in front of the subject. The cellphone rang. The girl turned to the subject and whispered, “The target is Stephen Fry.” The subject hesitated a moment, then touched his forehead, opened the case, pulled out a gun loaded with blanks, stood, and fired. Stephen Fry, who was wired with squibs (the exploding fake blood packets used in movies to simulate gunshots), fell down “dead.” The hypnotized man showed no reaction at the time. When shown a video of his act later, the subject seemed genuinely surprised at what he had done.

If Sirhan was hypnotized, is there any chance he could be “innocent” of the crime, as his current lawyers are pleading? While I’m not aware of any American precedent to such a claim, there was a similar case in Denmark in the 1950s. Palle Hadrup, who had committed a murder, was charged only with temporary insanity because the jury believed he had killed under the hypnotic influence of another man, a hardened criminal who directed Hadrup to commit crimes.

Robert Kennedy had many enemies, but which of them were capable of such a sophisticated plot? Could the mob have hypnotized Sirhan? Could Aristotle Onassis have suppressed the FBI’s evidence of conspiracy? Could Jimmy Hoffa have made sure that no troubling facts about the case were ever presented to a jury? Who had that kind of power?

The CIA had strong relationships with the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, and L.A. county officials. The CIA had enormous influence over the media, including national coverage of both Kennedy assassinations, as Carl Bernstein’s explosive October 1977 expose in Rolling Stone magazine later demonstrated. Even powerful FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover had never been able to rein in the CIA. If anyone had the power to pull this off and completely cover their tracks, it would be a small handful of people from the covert side of the agency.

Perhaps most significantly, the CIA was, by 1968, extremely experienced in various mind-control scenarios that involved drugs, hypnosis and a combination of the two. One of the CIA’s initial forays into this area came through a project code-named ARTICHOKE. One ARTICHOKE document presents the question: “Can an individual … be made to perform an act of attempted assassination involuntarily under the influence of ARTICHOKE?” This program later evolved into the MKULTRA program, an umbrella designation for hundreds of experiments that involved drugs, hypnosis and biological and chemical warfare.

But why would the CIA want to kill Robert Kennedy? Weren’t they in bed together on the Castro assassination plots when RFK was serving as his brother’s gung-ho attorney general? That’s a widely believed myth. The 1967 CIA Inspector General report on the anti-Castro plots explicitly asks, “Can CIA state or imply that it was merely an instrument of policy?” and answers, “Not in this case,” explaining that while RFK was informed of plots against Castro from the past, he was not informed of the plots that were continuing.

During his brother’s administration, Robert was a constant thorn in the CIA’s side. After the agency’s disastrous Bay of Pigs operation in April 1961, President Kennedy asked his brother to closely monitor the CIA, which infuriated the operatives who had for years prided themselves on their independence from authority. After RFK was elected to the Senate from New York in 1964 and became a growing critic of the war in Vietnam and the Johnson administration, the CIA began to keep a close watch on him.

Fact: The CIA was so concerned about Robert Kennedy in the last year of his life that it put spying on him on a par with spying on the Soviet Union, according to a report in the Washington Post after it obtained this data.

Perhaps the CIA was also anxious about RFK because, as David Talbot (the founder and current CEO of Salon) recounted in his 2007 book, “Brothers,” Robert Kennedy harbored suspicions about the CIA’s possible complicity in his brother’s death. One of Robert’s first calls after JFK’s assassination was to the CIA to ask if the agency had killed his brother. If members of the CIA were involved in the death of JFK, could they afford to let Robert ascend to an office where he’d have the power but to do something about that?

I’m well aware that extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence. I have much more to support what I’ve said here, which I am laying out in book form. I hope only to have cracked your mind open, because Occam’s Razor fails us when the simplest explanation is the carefully planned cover story.

Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney John Howard once said of Sirhan, “If he isn’t guilty, it’s the sweetest frame in the world.” I think Howard got that right. He isn’t. And it is.

Lisa Pease is an expert on the assassinations of the '60s in general and the Robert Kennedy assassination in particular. She has appeared on numerous radio shows and on the Discovery channel to talk about various aspects of Cold War history. Several of her articles were published in "The Assassinations" (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003), a book she also co-edited. She is a regular contributor to ConsortiumNews.com, Common Dreams, Truthout and Michael Moore’s site.

JFK

http://www.jonathanvankin.net/1/post/2011/11/jfk-excerpt-from-based-on-a-true-story-but-with-more-car-crashes.html

Excerpt From BASED ON A TRUE STORY (BUT WITH MORE CAR CRASHES)
(1991)

Directed by Oliver Stone. Screenplay by Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar.
Starring Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Oldman.

JFK, it could be said, is the movie that gave birth to this book. There have been a lot of films based on actual events, and more often than not, journalists and academics greet these releases with knives sharpened and fangs bared. Justifiably, in many cases. Nothing unusual about that – but there’s never been a movie as viciously and unrelentingly flayed as Oliver Stone’s JFK. That sorry episode is what got the debate about history and Hollywood rolling for real.

Regardless of how you felt about Oliver Stone or the Kennedy assassination itself, the torrent of media bile directed at this movie had to be a little unsettling. And puzzling. There had been films about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy before. In 1973, the Dalton Trumbo-written Executive Action had a cabal of right-wing industrialists and oilmen, alarmed by Kennedy’s dangerously progressive policies, contracting a hit (“executive action”) on the president, carried out by mercenaries who station three different riflemen in Dealey Plaza and set up Lee Harvey Oswald as an innocent “patsy.”

The Executive Action conspiracy is not far removed from the plotline of Stone’s three-hour epic 17 years later. Yet Executive Action, despite its release only a decade after the actual event, when the memory was still raw, generated no controversy worth mentioning.

The blitzkrieg on JFK commenced long before the Warner Brothers-backed movie ever threaded through a projector. Before, for that matter, the movie finished filming. The media got hold of an early draft of Stone’s script and began exenterating it while Stone was still re-enacting the Kennedy Assassination in Dallas, with Dealey Plaza now dressed up as a movie set. The rancor toward the movie and, as former Kennedy aide Frank Mankiewicz pointed out, the very idea that such a movie could exist, was savage and merciless.

The New York Times in particular dedicated almost 30 articles (including letters and op-ed pieces) to shredding the film. The Washington Post published an article by its longtime intelligence correspondent George Lardner Jr. skewering Stone’s movie for its many “errors and absurdities, large and small,” a full seven months (almost to the day) before the film’s release. Around the same premature period, a writer for Chicago Tribune-owned Dallas Morning News (hometown paper of the home of the Kennedy assassination) decried Stone’s then-unmade film as “morally repugnant.” In fact, the same article also branded as “morally repugnant” Time-Warner corporation and, indeed, “anyone who pays American money to see the film.” (Presumably foreigners spending their own currency are fine.) The week of JFK’s release, Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post) put the controversy on its cover, announcing, unambiguously, that “Oliver Stone's New Movie Can't be Trusted.”

The Times’ longtime Hollywood reporter Bernard Weinraub filed a “story” (more of an opinion piece, actually) denouncing Warner Brothers for releasing the film at all, espousing the viewpoint that movie studios have a “responsibility” to suppress politically controversial subject matter. The paper’s distinguished liberal columnist Tom Wicker produced a particularly vehement hit piece.

Says Mankiewicz, “the New York Times and its allies in the major commercial media set out – and nearly succeeded – not just to discredit Oliver Stone and his film, but to destroy it.”

The media assault was bizarre, and unprecedented – except perhaps (as Stone himself pointed out) by the Hearst newspapers’ attack on Citizen Kane 50 years earlier. In that case, the media’s motive was plain. Kane was an unflattering character study of Hearst himself. With JFK, the question is the same as the question asked by Stone’s hypothetical “Mr. X” character, about the assassination itself.

Why?

What was it about this movie that posed a clear and present danger? In the minds of the major media, at least.

The assailants’ motives are many and varied. As Mankiewicz notes, the most adamant attackers, including Wicker and Lardner, were “directly involved in reporting the events of November 22, 1962,” but in the ensuing three decades “hardly gave the event a backward glance.” The movie indicts not only the overly credulous reporting of those journalists at the time, but the course of their entire careers and more than that, their whole view of American politics – a view which holds that the assassination, while certainly a personal tragedy and a “loss of innocence” for the American public, was insignificant in political terms. Absurd as it seems, in their view the murder of the president was a pop culture event, not a political one.

There’s also the jealousy factor. A Hollywood movie reaches far more people than a piece in the New York Times could ever hope to.

Another brand of jealousy: Some of the film’s opponents had written conspiracy books of their own. Journalist Anthony Summers and early Warren Report critic Harold Weisberg were among that number. It was Weisberg who obtained the purloined first-draft script that served as the basis for the way-early articles tearing into Stone’s project.

Whatever the psychology or hidden agendas of the pilers-on, on a superficial level they all attacked JFK for the same alleged crime: Stone “twisted history.” This is the only legitimate criticism of the film (other than aesthetic criticisms, of course). The motion picture in question, sayeth the sages, distorts historical facts to make a political point.

Does it? It would take a book of its own to address the facts in the film. There’s no way to confirm this, but JFK must be the most fact-heavy film in Hollywood history. The screenplay is a triumph of expository dialog. There’s hardly any dialog in there that doesn’t explicate one point of fact or another. Heck. We’d write that book if it hadn’t already been written. One year after JFK came out, Stone and his collaborator Zachary Sklar published JFK: The Documented Screenplay. They included 340 notes, citing the source of every major or controversial assertion of fact in the script. In the months before and after his movie came out, Stone spent plenty of time rebutting his critics, but the book was the ultimate comeback. For every time he’s accused of inventing, warping and spinning facts to suit his own ends, he can always point to research in the book. The sources can then be judged on their own merits.

The real problem was that people still bicker over the sources. For every fact cited as gospel by a conspiracy “buff,” there’s a Lone Assassin Loyalist who’ll bust a blood vessel screaming that it’s not true. And it works the other way, too. Which does not mean that the entire history of the assassination is a Rorschach blot. It means only that establishing veracity in this case has already been the subject of hundreds of books on both sides of the issue, with hundreds more to come, undoubtedly. When they say that Stone warps the historical record, they’re really saying that his facts that don’t fit their theory.

The most glaring example was Stone’s choice of a hero. He needed some central character to tie together the multifarious threads of assassination conspiracy research into something resembling a narrative – and he sure wasn’t going to use Earl Warren. That left only one choice, the only law enforcement official to ever prosecute a trial in the assassination case, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.

From 1966 until 1969, Garrison chased a New Orleans connection to the Kennedy assassination. Garrison’s investigation culminated in the arrest and trial of a prominent New Orleans businessman, Clay Shaw, whom Garrison believed was somehow involved in planning the assassination.

Of all the JFK assassination “conspiracy theorists,” the only one who’s received worse public pillorying than Stone is Earling Carothers “Jim” Garrison. He’s been vilified as a charlatan, a political opportunist, a mafia stooge and a lunatic. The Most Trusted Man in America himself, Walter Cronkite, denounced Garrison as “evil” for his persecution of the “innocent man,” Shaw.

By the time Stone’s movie reached screens, Garrison was terminally ill. In one of his final interviews, for a documentary entitled Beyond JFK, he is shown flat on his back in a hospital bed. He died in 1992. But his frailty and impending death did not temper the renewed verbal assault directed at him then by, well, many of the same commentators who assaulted him the first time around.

They found it especially galling that Stone cast the role of Garrison with Kevin Costner. Costner was still polishing his Oscars from Dances With Wolves just a year earlier. In 1991 he was the biggest movie star in the business. Not only did Costner bear no physical or temperamental resemblance to the jocular-yet-bellicose, six-foot-six Garrison, worst of all as far as the anti-JFKers were concerned, Costner came with an onscreen persona besst described as “heroic everyman.” Kind of an updated Jimmy Stewart. The Costner likeability was at direct odds with their picture of Garrison as a reckless, ruthless, grandiloquent self-aggrandizer.

Stone’s perception of Garrison couldn’t have been more different. To him Garrison was a Capraesque figure, which was exactly the reason he cast Costner.

“I’ve never found Garrison to be the ‘kook’ pictured by a hostile press,” Stone wrote in Premiere magazine. Instead, says Stone, Garrison is a literate, eloquent and patriotic military veteran, former FBI agent and appellate judge. As to Garrison’s much publicized personality flaws (“arrogance and paranoia among them,” wrote Stone), the director chose to omit them from his portrayal because, “either you had to make Garrison the issue or make Kennedy the issue. I chose Kennedy.”

What was quite clear from the voluminous op-ed critiques of his film (though not from reviewers, who generally admired JFK), the film’s detractors would have preferred him to choose Garrison.

Stone acknowledged (in the same Premiere article) that he used Garrison as a vessel through which he channeled four decades of assassination research. Other researchers, before Garrison and after, formulated many of the ideas that issue from Costner/Garrison’s lips.

“It is typically Capraeqsue that private citizens have done the work while government bodies stagnated,” remarked Stone. Stone also invented the aforementioned “Mr. X,” supposedly an ex-military “black ops” man who meets secretly with Garrison in Washington and spells out the reasons why Kennedy was killed – on a purely anonymous basis. No such person existed, much less acted as a “Deep Throat” for Garrison. The character is based largely on Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, who was indeed an ex-military man once involved in covert operations. Many of the assertions in Mr. X’s lengthy soliloquy are Prouty’s. Far from anonymous, Prouty expresses his views in two published books and countless on-the-record interviews.

Nonetheless, in its broad outline anyway, JFK followed the course of Garrison’s investigation. It begins in 1963, shortly after the assassination, when Garrison learns that Oswald (Gary Oldman, in the movie) lived in New Orleans through the spring and summer of that year. He arrests David Ferrie, a strange-looking man and possible acquaintance of Oswald who for reasons unknown had driven to Texas through a torrential rainstorm the night of the assassination. But the FBI sets Ferrie free without charges.

Garrison picks up the investigation again in 1966, after a conversation with Louisiana Senator Russell Long. Long surprises Garrison with his cynical view of the Warren Commission Report: “That dog don’t hunt!” Garrison zeroes in on Ferrie once again, only to have Ferrie die suddenly as soon as his name surfaced in the press as a suspect. (Oddly enough – and this Stone does not include – the last known person to see Ferrie alive was journalist George Lardner Jr., the same Lardner who wrote the above-mentioned Washington Post attack piece in 1991.) At that point, Garrison decides to arrest Clay Shaw. After a month-long trial in which Garrison and his assistants went to great lengths to show that there was a conspiracy, Shaw was acquitted. Jurors late said that Garrison had persuaded them that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, but not that Clay Shaw was part of that conspiracy.

That is the basic outline of JFK’s plot, and of the real-life Garrison investigation. Stone took many of the boilerplate dramatic liberties common to historical films. He used composite characters. The convict “Willie O’Keefe” (Kevin Bacon) was an amalgam of Garrison’s star witness Perry Russo and several other lesser figures. He melodramatizes the mundane roles of real characters. For example, Garrison’s assistant D.A. Lou Ivon did not quit his job, as does the “Lou Ivon” character in the film. Stone even invents a female member of Garrison’s investigative team, presumably to make the cast more palatable to a 90s audience. In reality, Garrison had no distaff staffers.

Naturally, he invents most of the dialog. But not all of it. Warrren Commission testimony is quoted verbatim as is testimony from Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw. One speech that was only partially invented was Garrison’s lengthy closing argument in which he exhorts jurors to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” and calls for the opening of sealed assassination files that were mandated closed until 2039.

Curiously, some of the film’s attackers scoffed that Garrison never made a closing argument, leaving the chore to his assistants. To the contrary, he manifestly did make the statement, and his wording was very similar to the speech delivered by Costner in the film -- including the Kennedy quote and the call to open secret files.

The merits of taking such dramatic license are debatable, but there are films discussed in other chapters of this book that take far greater liberties than Stone took. So why is JFK the most vilified historical film of all time? There are probably as many reasons as there are vilifiers, but they all can be boiled down to one thing: they hated what Stone had to say. This wasn’t a matter of prettying up some celebrity’s messy life for a bio-pic, or adding a few car crashes to ratchet up the action quotient. To its critics, JFK was a film that offended their deeply held view of the world. Stone questioned their religion.

Most Hollywood movies aim for quite the opposite, to comfort and reassure their audience. JFK doesn’t ask its viewers to leave feeling good. It asks them to think. To question. Apparently, judging by the assault on the film, that is the last thing some in the media want you to do.

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING

Garrison, Jim. On the Trail of the Assassins. New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1988.

James, Rosemary and Jack Wardlaw. Plot or Politics? New Orleans, Pelican Publishing House, 1967.

Stone, Oliver and Zachary Sklar. JFK: The Documented Screenplay. New York: Applause Books, 1992.