Pauper'S Oath Texas: Fill & Download for Free

The question is a subtle formulation. And a classic case of the wrong question.There is no direct evidence any CIA 'member' was a conspirator in the assassination, which, in my view, wasn't committed by Lee Harvey Oswald.There is however profound evidence, from multiple reliable sources (which give the lie to 'but no one ever talked' shibboleth) that US military intelligence was involved. That evidence extends to not merely Oswald but the Dallas police department, the New Orleans customs service and the camps in Florida and Lousiana where Cuban exiles were in the care and control of US military intelligence.Further to Mr Mullich's allegation Oswald was sole planner and perpetrator, as a former criminal courts journalist and police intelligence specialist, I believe it's no exaggeration to assert that Oswald would never have been convicted had he lived to reach trial.Further, as evidence of the military intelligence aspect of the case, Oswald's sole phone call on the night of Nov 23rd was to a known cutout of US military intelligence, a man the FBI specifically ordered Oswald be disconnected from. This is a matter of fact: the evidence is in the Dallas PD files. Oswald was trying to let his handlers know he wouldn't blow his cover by making that call; it was what he was trained to do.What he did, however, was to sign his own death warrant: I believe Oswald was meant to have died in the Texas Theatre, if not before. (The evidence of the young son of a DPD detective, in the staff washroom of the DPD on the afternoon of the Nov 22nd, is horrifying: he claims to have heard serving DPD officers berating an unknown officer for 'not having killed Lee.' Make of that what you will. That's not hearsay evidence: it's eyewitness evidence, of a policeman's child, of sound mind and body. He's still alive.)Moreover, contrary to Vincent Bugliosi's appalling book on Oswald, Oswald was deeply connected to US military intelligence agencies whose records of his files are magically either destroyed, denied or redacted beyond recognition.Chief of these are Oswald's Office of Naval Intelligence files; as a Marine (and therefore an enlisted Navy man) who was a known defector (and who came back from the USSR on the US State Department's dime, unheard of in defector cases), Oswald's ONI file would have been massive and superseded even the CIA's or the FBI's.His entire ONI file, especially his highly suspect New Orleans work for as a Fair Play for Cuba advocate (about which Jack Ruby was astonishingly familiar and said so at a TV news conference two days before killing Oswald) has vanished.At least one naval officer has admitted those files 'filled a U-haul trailer' and were shipped to Washington on Nov 25/26 1963, never to be seen again.There is clear and compelling evidence of multiple Oswald doubles, including one apparently swept out the back door of the Texas Theatre even as Oswald was being bundled into a DPD cruiser out front. These are not conspiracy theory fantasies: they're operational tactics that Oswald's role as a deep defector and 'double' in the Cuban exile community left him wide open to being framed as a 'patsy.'But leaving all that evidence aside—carefully and deliberately left out of the Warren Commission report and submerged, in every way possible, by the FBI and the CIA itself as late as the House committee on assassinations report (which found for a conspiracy) in 1978 and again after Stone's JFK forced out thousands of previously withheld files—Oswald's intelligence connections were admitted by sitting senators, including Richard Schweiker, who famous said "the fingerprints of intelligence are all over the case of Lee Harvey Oswald."There is a tremendous volume of forensically sound, courtroom-ready evidence that exculpates Oswald and points at a team of Cuban assassins, with US military intelligence handlers who aided and abetted them.Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason, an extraordinary book, actually places US military intelligence officers in a room in Florida recruiting not the hit team (they already had that in place) but the patsies who'd take the fall after the assassination. In making the recruitment overture, the officer in question specifically named JFK as the target. The reason the hit team member spoke to at least two investigators (AJ Weberman and Twyman himself) is not because he had a soft spot for Kennedy—that regret came on his deathbed, apparently—but because he realized he was being set up to take the fall.These are not fantasies: they are competent eyewitnesses and cogent, objective case histories, which point clearly to a conspiracy. Journalists of repute have found these people and interviewed them and...surprise, surprise, the stories are spiked, the documentaries never commissioned. Only in the UK and Holland has any real investigative journalism made it to air.Single example: Anthony Summers tracked down an elderly Cuban exile, a committed anti-JFK mercenary, who identified, on camera, one of the Cubans who admitted to being in Dealey Plaza as both a crack shot and a man who loathed Kennedy. The catch: this man, Herminio Diaz, died in 1966 in a secret raid on Cuba. This wasn't hearsay: this was eyewitness viva voce evidence. Summers is an internationally respected journalist.Another example: Bruce Pitzer was the naval officer in charge of the photographic evidence of the JFK autopsy at Bethesda naval hospital. He allegedly shot himself in his office, shortly after revealing to colleagues he had evidence of a conspiracy in the president's death.This might have been yet another controversial suicide except that a former Special Forces (read: élite military intelligence officer) Green Beret admitted on camera he had been asked to kill Pitzer, after having participated in a Green Beret exercise which (he alleged) approvingly detailed how the 'crossfire' in Dallas was actually designed and executed.A Green Beret colleague of his agreed to take on the Pitzer hit...and then things get really interesting, because the Green Beret kept a list of all his colleagues on the 'Dallas exercise,' including the colleague who (allegedly) agreed to kill Pitzer as an operational assignment.When the Green Beret (who had his colleague's ID number from the list) tried to track down his colleague to confront him, he was told no such person had ever been part of the US military.Make of that what you will: in my world, that's prime evidence of a conspiracy. (Sidebar: I have seen exactly this behaviour from US military recordskeeping authorities in the case of allegations of USAF staff involvement in Nazi goldwashing 1945 onwards. Enlisted men's pensions simply vanished and they died paupers for having blown the whistle on the gold thefts. A sitting US congressman has the tapes of these men, made known to me by a US government investigator attached to President Clinton's commission of inquiry into Holocaust-era assets in the US. Moral: don't piss off the Pentagon, especially when there's gold involved.)To wrap this up, I suggest those interested take a hard and critical look at the following serious studies of the Oswald case. The first is in my opinion a superbly complete deconstruction (audio file only) of Oswald's actions had the case been treated as a straight homicide with more here:http://maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_State_Secret_Preface.html—the actual work, produced over a decade by a virtuoso investigator and given away free.Twyman's book is, in my view, the smoking gun. When you can put a military intelligence officer in a room asking a known and admitted killer for the US Government to freelance the killing of a president, then you have a story.A story you've heard? No? Then ask yourself why these books and well-researched work never make it to television. (Reminder: I'm a former TV investigative reporter/researcher.)The common plaint to all this, of course, is that 'somebody would have talked.' The answer: dozens of people have, including the young woman who simply had to have seen Oswald on the stairs leaving the sixth floor 'sniper's perch' if the Warren Commission was correct—she couldn't have and she didn't.Then there's the chilling story of the CIA's frantic attempts to disassociate themselves from Oswald, especially the Mexico City station (run the month of the assassination by—guess who?—E. Howard Hunt, no less, on secondment), deeply complicit in what appears to have been a 'dangle' to 'double' a Cuban official with Oswald's legend as the bait—the same Oswald whose CIA case officer, David Attlee Phillips, admitted had never been to Mexico City.Finally, there's the evidence of Doug Horne, a military intelligence records specialist attached to the 1996 JFK files project by the National Archives. Yes: a military intelligence officer.Not only has Horne blown the JFK autopsy results to smithereens—remember, Horne is a former military records specialist and Bethesda and its staff all military—but he also raises deeply disturbing questions about the provenance and completeness of the Zapruder film.This clip features the testimony of Dino Brugioni, who ran the National Photographic Interpretation Center (where CIA spy satellite and U2 photointerpretation was done) and who questions (convincingly to my mind, but you make up yours) that the Zapruder film was edited to prevent LIFE Magazine publishing visual evidence which pointed clearly to multiple gunmen the week after the assassination.If that's not enough for you, before he died, Clay Shaw, target of New Orleans DA Jim Garrison for his role in the New Orleans conspiracies, admitted he was a CIA agent at the time of the assassination to a close friend who reported the conversation. (Not a source: Shaw was an agent. On the payroll.) Moreover, after Shaw died, CIA director Richard Helms, under oath, admitted Shaw was a CIA agent (not a source: an agent). So much for JFK as bullshit about Shaw.That Shaw drove Oswald all over New Orleans parish in the company of co-conspirator and assassination designer David Ferrie—at least one witness saw Ferrie's drawings of cross-fire trajectories in Dealey Plaza—in midsummer 1963 is beyond dispute if you know where to look.The Warren Commission did—and looked away, incited by both President Johnson and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.Jim Garrison's investigators tracked Shaw's unmissable Cadillac convertible to some very strange places indeed in the summer of 1963—with Oswald in tow. For more on this, read Temple University Prof Joan Mellen's devastating apologia for Garrison's work (Amazon.com: A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History (9781620871881): Joan Mellen: Books)There's vast evidence here. You have to want to see it and weigh it—that and have, as you're doing the digging, a very understanding spouse (which I happen to have).All of this raises questions about what to my thinking is clear-cut evidence of an American putsch, and not the last: military intelligence fingerprints are all over the Watergate case as well.Another story for another day.If you want to hear, straight from the horse's mouth, what the leading Cuban exile leader thinks (versus Mr Mullich's opinion) of the CIA's role in the JFK assassination conspiracies (there's clear evidence there was more than one contingency to kill JFK), then listen to Antonio Veciana, the Cuban CIA handler and black ops specialist David Attlee Phillips ran as an agent for 20 years—and whom Veciana saw with Lee Harvey Oswald, in Dallas, three weeks before the assassination.Veciana completely inculpates the CIA in the conspiracy, on the record, at the 2014 JFK assassination summit in Washington DC. Antonio Veciana - Admissions and Revelations (one hour 17 minutes of pure evidentiary dynamite, if you care to watch and listen)And if Veciana's testimony isn't damning enough, then, at the same event, the former head of the House subcommittee on assassinations, Notre Dame law prof G Robert Blakey, decried the CIA's role in the assassination investigations, both the Warren Commission and his own committee's report.Quote:“So my position about the agency is they didn’t cooperate with us, they affirmatively made an effort not to cooperate with us, and therefore everything that they told us is a lie. And all the statements in the report about cooperation, it’s just false. We were had.” Forty-two minute speech here: AARC 2014 Conference: The HSCA and the CIA: The View from the Trenches and the View from the TopI'm a Canadian who grew up in the US, who remembers the day he was in third grade and heard JFK had been shot. And, because I have listened to those 'who talked' as well as competent lawyers like Prof Blakey, I know something every American should be irate about or ashamed to know: the US Senate can simply order the declassification of the JFK holdings at CIA—unredacted—the Senate has the power to do so.Now that is a matter of constitutional law and legal precedence. My question is (and it's Blakey's too: he's brought a lawsuit against the CIA for fraud, for misleading a Congressional investigation) this: why if you ask around Washington (and I have) does everyone just roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders when you ask the $64,000 question: what's so horrific in the CIA JFK/Oswald holdings (if they still exist) that the American people cannot know, 60 years on? The Congress can make it so.I have a theory: it's because Nov 22 1963 was a coup d'etat—and that likelihood—what James Douglass so rightly terms 'the unspeakable'no one inside the Beltway—least of all the media types who make their living reporting 'the news'—wants to consider even as theory.I'd say, given the state of the evidence, considered in the round and taken as a whole, it's a pretty good theory. (I haven't tackled the better known evidence in Dealey Plaza ('spook central' in the words of one of the few reliable Dallas police officials) of a crossfire. That wasn't the question posed above.)Kennedy himself believed this theory—and invited the makers of the film about an American coup d'etat, Seven Days in May, to make the film in the White House itself. Khrushchev himself asked his foreign minister Gromyko how they were going to help JFK escape his own military's will to use nuclear weapons, to stop the appetite of both military leaderships, Soviet and American alike, for military action over Cuba. Yes: 'help.' That was the word.JFK told his brother Robert that he (RFK) could tell Soviet ambassador Dobrynin that he (JFK) wasn't certain he (JFK) could (a) control his own military and (b) prevent a military coup d'etat.JFK's own military considered him a traitor and he knew this, particularly after his June 1963 speech at American University seeking an end to the Cold War.This is a matter of fact, not theory, cited in Khrushchev's memoirs and Dobrynin's as well, and David Talbot's Brothers, a dual political biography of the Kennedys.To frame the question of Kennedy's assassination as an accusation against the CIA is to gloriously mis-frame the case, in my view, just as the Warren Commission (deliberately) mis-framed the forensics of the killing itself.But that's no surprise, is it, considering that a Nov 22 1963 American coup d'etat's consequences, its sequelae, are, as yet, unspeakable?