The infamous website “Something Awful” was started by unethical degenerates, and was infiltrated by hardcore leftist degenerates long ago. The diagram above explains how Gianturco is at the center of a web of degeneracy that controls that web site, and is controlled in turn by Podesta.
That’s probably the most important story of racketeering for the long-term view, but the news also had a lot of short-term racketeering stories.
documentary on weapons dealing and perpetual war
The USA is run by racketeers. Big Alcohol can put legal marijuana out of business because they can legally sell pot but they can’t legally transport it.
Trent Franks says Mueller should resign
Keepin’ it real:
Half of the eight mayoral hopefuls on Detroit’s primary ballot next week have been convicted of felony crimes involving drugs, assault or weapons, a Detroit News analysis shows.
Three were charged with gun crimes and two for assault with intent to commit murder. Some of the offenses date back decades, the earliest to 1977. The most recent was in 2008.
Political consultant Greg Bowens said there are candidates with past hardships in every election cycle. It’s not something unique to Detroit or the political arena in general, he said.
“Black marks on your record show you have lived a little and have overcome some challenges,” said Bowens, a former press secretary to Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer and NAACP activist. “They (candidates) deserve the opportunity to be heard, but they also deserve to have the kind of scrutiny that comes along with trying to get an important elected position.”
Tuesday’s Detroit mayoral primary election is the first since the city exited bankruptcy in 2014. The field of eight will be narrowed to two who will face off in the fall.
Under state election law, convicted felons can vote and run for office as long as they are not incarcerated or guilty of certain fraud-related offenses, or crimes involving a breach of the public trust. The Detroit News reviewed the backgrounds of all the mayoral contenders.
During his presentation at the US Congress in November of 2013, Macgregor compared the state of the US Army to a nine-passenger rowboat, in which “four would steer, three would call cadence and two would man the oars,” according to Politico.
In other words, Macgregor said that the US Army is poorly organized or not well-trained, and if it had to face another army, equal in numbers and as technologically advanced, such the Russian or Chinese forces, on a conventional battlefield there is a high chance that US forces would be destroyed.
“Even if you increased the Army to 600,000 in its current form… it would still fail. That’s the problem and, by the way, the Army knows it,” the US military expert said, as cited by Politico.
Comment: The US military is a racket. Of course they are not competent to WIN wars. Their purpose is to drag out wars for maximal profit.
Baltimore Cops Keep Accidentally Recording Themselves Planting Drugs on People
The Senate on Tuesday confirmed Christopher Wray as the next director of the FBI, but in an unprecedented move, five senators voted against his nomination. Before yesterday, only one senator had ever voted against an FBI nominee. In addition, three senators abstained from the vote. Senator Ron Wyden, who voted against Wray’s confirmation, said he did so because of Wray’s position on government surveillance. “In his public and private statements, Chris Wray failed to oppose government backdoors into Americans’ personal devices, or to acknowledge the facts about encryption. That it isn’t about liberty versus security, it’s about more security versus less security.” The American Civil Liberties Union also criticized Wray for his involvement in the U.S. torture program under George W. Bush.
Academic food science editor was on Monsanto’s payroll. Conflicts of interest abound, even in science.
The following bombshell story appears on GM Watch and was published on August 2, 2017. It appears on the same day that the New York Times published another bombshell story revealing Forbes.com to be a propaganda rag for Monsanto. What’s abundantly clear in all this is how Monsanto’s web of criminality, lies and deceit is rapidly unraveling, and the evil corporation is facing billions of dollars in damages from multiple lawsuits across the country.
Read this article from GM Watch and learn just how devious and criminal Monsanto has become. It is truly the most evil corporation on the planet, and it bankrolls evil, corrupt people like Bruce Chassy, Jon Entine and A. Wallace Hayes. Every effort to retract science papers that exposed the toxicity of GMOs and glyphosate, we now know, was orchestrated by Monsanto through a network of bribery and fraud that even ensnared the editors of science journals. No corporation has corrupted science more than Monsanto, and it is very telling that science propagandists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have joined the efforts of Monsanto to lie to the world and suppress scientific truth in order to protect the profits of the world’s most evil (and dangerous) corporation.
Here’s the full story from GM Watch. Also see this page of court discovery documents, listed on USRTK.org.
UNCOVERED: MONSANTO CAMPAIGN TO GET SÉRALINI STUDY RETRACTED
Documents released in US cancer litigation show Monsanto’s desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed adverse effects of Roundup herbicide – and that the editor of the journal that retracted the study had a contractual relationship with the company. Claire Robinson reports
Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.
The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.
The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.
Use of “third party experts” is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly “independent” experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement.
In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting that he “Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”
Saltmiras further writes of how “Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.”
Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency… I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”
In response to Monsanto’s request, Chassy urged Hayes to retract the Séralini paper: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”
Chassy was also the first signatory of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.
Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens: “There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review.”
Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states: “I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably “Letter to the Editor”]…. It implies we had something to do with it – otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add ‘Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries’ if you both think this is OK.” Sachs responds: “We are ‘connected’ but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it.”
A. WALLACE HAYES WAS PAID BY MONSANTO
The most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.
The documents also reveal that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to “Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013.”
Hayes should have recused himself from any involvement with the Séralini study from the time he signed this agreement. But he kept quiet. He went on to oversee a second “review” of the study by unnamed persons whose conflicts of interest, if any, were not declared – resulting in his decision to retract the study for the unprecedented reason that some of the results were “inconclusive”.
Hayes told the New York Times’s Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that “Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract.” But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it’s clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.
The timing of the contract also begs the question as to whether Monsanto knew the publication of the study was coming. If so, they may have been happy to initiate such a relationship with Hayes at just that time.
A Monsanto internal email confirms the company’s intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study: “Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process.”
In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to the Séralini study: “Retraction – Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis – that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request.”
Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished by another journal with higher principles – and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn’t under contract with Monsanto.
WHY MONSANTO HAD TO KILL THE SÉRALINI STUDY
It’s obvious that it was in Monsanto’s interests to kill the Séralini study. The immediate reason was that it reported harmful effects from low doses of Roundup and a GM maize engineered to tolerate it. But the wider reason that emerges from the documents is that to admit that the study had any validity whatsoever would be to open the doors for regulators and others to demand other long-term studies on GM crops and their associated pesticides.
A related danger for Monsanto, pointed out by Goldstein, is that “a third party may procure funding to verify Séralini’s claims, either through a government agency or the anti-GMO/antl-pesticide financiers”.
The documents show that Monsanto held a number of international teleconferences to discuss how to pre-empt such hugely threatening developments.
Summing up the points from the teleconferences, Daniel Goldstein writes that “unfortunately”, three “potential issues regarding long term studies have now come up and will need some consideration and probably a white paper of some type (either internal or external)”. These are potential demands for
• 2 year rat/long-term cancer (and possibly reproductive toxicity) on GM crops
• 2 year/chronic studies on pesticide formulations, in addition to the studies on the active ingredient alone that are currently demanded by regulators, and
• 2 year rat/chronic studies of pesticide formulations on the GM crop.
In reply to the first point, Goldstein writes that the Séralini study “found nothing other than the usual variation in SD [Sprague-Dawley] rats, and as such there is no reason to question the recent EFSA guidance that such studies were not needed for substantially equivalent crops”. GMWatch readers will not be surprised to see Monsanto gaining support from EFSA in its opposition to carrying out long-term studies on GMOs.
In answer to the second point, Goldstein reiterates that the Séralini study “actually finds nothing – so there is no need to draw any conclusions from it – but the theoretical issue has been placed on the table. We need to be prepared with a well considered response.”
In answer to the third point, Goldstein ignores the radical nature of genetic engineering and argues pragmatically, if not scientifically, “This approach would suggest that the same issue arises for conventional crops and that every individual formulation would need a chronic study over every crop (at a minimum) and probably every variety of crop (since we know they have more genetic variation than GM vs conventional congener) and raises the possibility of an almost limitless number of tests.” But he adds, “We also need a coherent argument for this issue.”
EU REGULATORS SIDE WITH MONSANTO
To the public’s detriment, some regulatory bodies have backed Monsanto rather than the public interest and have backed off the notion that long-term studies should be required for GM crops. In fact, the EU is considering doing away with even the short 90-day animal feeding studies currently required under European GMO legislation. This will be based in part on the results of the EU-funded GRACE animal feeding project, which has come under fire for the industry links of some of the scientists involved and for its alleged manipulation of findings of adverse effects on rats fed Monsanto’s GM MON810 maize.
A. Wallace Hayes is no longer the editor-in-chief of FCT but is named as an “emeritus editor”. Likewise, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who was parachuted onto the journal’s editorial board shortly after the publication of the Séralini study, is no longer at the journal.
But although they are sidelined or gone, their legacy lives on in the form of a gap in the history of the journal where Séralini’s paper belongs.
Now that Monsanto’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini paper is out in the open, FCT and Hayes should do the decent thing and issue a formal apology to Prof Séralini and his team. FCT cannot and should not reinstate the paper, because it is now published by another journal. But it needs to draw a line under this shameful episode, admit that it handled it badly, and declare its support for scientific independence and objectivity.
Read the full entry at GMwatch.org
The racketeers killed JFK:
SOURCE: WHO WHAT WHY
For decades, those investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy have been eagerly anticipating the release of previously withheld documents scheduled for later this year, October 26. One major question that remains is whether President Donald Trump will use his authority to further keep these documents from the public eye.(1)
Fifty-four years is long enough.
The potential for discovery represented by the recent and upcoming release of remaining government files on the Kennedy assassination was realized this week with the startling revelation that beginning in 1956, Earle Cabell, brother of Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Charles P. Cabell and Mayor of Dallas at the time JFK was assassinated, was a CIA asset.
We are now able to review his 10/17/56 CIA Secrecy Agreement, his CIA 201 file cover sheet, his 5/13/57 CIA Personality 201 File Request, and a cover sheet indicating that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reviewed his 201 file. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) master listing of files scheduled for release indicates that the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) classified these records as “Not Believed Relevant” (NBR). ARRB Director Judge John Tunheim, speaking at the National Press Club during a CAPA sponsored event this past March, said that he now believes that many of the NBR-designated documents are indeed relevant. With the benefit of hindsight, that may have been an understatement.
The passage of many days, months, or years may be necessary for information to be placed in the correct context and understood as being significant. The example of George Joannides, who was brought out of retirement to act as liaison between the Agency and the HSCA, is a case in point. Joannides’ role as the CIA case officer for the DRE (Revolutionary Student Directorate), an anti-Castro group with which Lee Harvey Oswald had interacted in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, was withheld by the agency throughout the term of the HSCA which was investigating CIA connections to the group. When asked directly if Joannides could assist the HSCA by identifying the officer who had handled the DRE during the summer of 1963, he responded by saying, “I’ll look into that.” Perhaps the CIA did not feel that revealing Joannides’ true identity to the Committee investigators was “assassination-related.”
The official ARRB classification “assassination-related” was not limited to issues or evidence pertaining exclusively to the scene of the crime.
Dr. John Newman argues that real progress in solving the JFK assassination will not to come to those who await a smoking-gun revelation, but will be possible if we first have an understanding of the internal language of US government cryptonyms and pseudonyms. Only by establishing the true identities of the actors — and their locations and activities — can we hope to separate fact from fiction in this mystifying saga.
That has been his goal in a series of publications on America’s untold history over the last three decades. As a retired strategic intelligence cryptologic analyst for US Army Intelligence and the former military assistant to the director of the National Security Agency, Newman has some unique qualifications. His works on the cold war and America’s involvement in Vietnam have been recognized by many, including Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and former CIA Director William Colby to be among the most authoritative and significant yet published. In past publications he correctly foretold what we are now seeing in the 2017 release of JFK records.
His 1991 book, JFK and Vietnam, documents Kennedy’s navigation of a dangerous course through cold war hot spots and a very divided administration. What eventually emerged is an astonishingly dishonorable deception: a deliberate attempt to manipulate the President of the United States into authorizing a war policy to which he was fundamentally opposed. The media firestorm created by that thesis, that JFK was committed to withdrawing from Vietnam at the time of his death, and obstructions such as the book’s suppression by Warner Books after only five months on the bookshelves, did little to dissuade Newman from pursuing the story wherever it might lead.
It led to Oswald and the CIA. Published in 1995, his second book used the enormous collection of federal agency documents newly released by the ARRB to explore the CIA’s keen operational interest in Lee Harvey Oswald. It focused on the people and organizations who opened and maintained Oswald’s intelligence files for four years prior to the president’s assassination, and it provided evidence to explore the question of whether Oswald might have been a false defector when he left the US for the Soviet Union in 1959. [See Countdown to Darkness, Chapters One and Eighteen for a detailed account of that story.]
Newman re-entered the JFK case in 2015 with the publication of Where Angels Tread Lightly: The Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume One. The updated and expanded second edition of JFK and Vietnam appeared in January 2017, as did Volume Two in Newman’s series on the assassination, Countdown to Darkness.
NAMING NAMES AND SECRET MISSIONS
The CIA was not the only federal agency to involve itself with organizing, recruiting and utilising anti-Castro paramilitary groups, but it may have been the one that invested the most time and money. JFK assassination research has focused a great deal of attention on the Agency’s handling and control of such groups and the activists who made up their memberships. The CIA officers, agents and assets who ran those operations are also worthy of our attention. Volume II offered bold new predictions about the pseudonyms and cryptonyms used for the CIA officers and contract agents who dared — without diplomatic protection — to run the stay-behind nets inside Cuba after the January 1961 break in relations with the US. Three men whose careers would become increasingly important to our understanding of operations being directed against Castro by the CIA are Emilio Americo Rodriguez, Tony Sforza, and James Joseph O’Mailia.
Countdown to Darkness identified the CIA’s principal deep-cover stay-behind agent in Cuba, Emilio Americo Rodriquez, as the person behind the CIA cryptonym AMIRE-1. In the CIA’s long search for reliable recruits to employ as human intelligence who would accept dangerous assignments there could hardly have been anyone more qualified or better suited than Emilio Rodriguez, a multi-lingual young Cuban with American citizenship who approached the Agency in Washington in late 1959 offering to serve in the fight against Castro and a communist takeover of Cuba. By May of 1960, Rodriguez had been cleared for operational employment and was in place in Havana. Newman ascertained that Rodriguez used the pseudonym “Eugenio” for his stay-behind net in Cuba, that Rodriguez’s work for American businesses in Cuba had been used to provide a cover, and that his stay-behind partner in Cuba was CIA contract paramilitary agent, Tony Sforza. Sforza would become notorious for his Agency-related exploits as the man who recruited Fidel Castro’s sister Juanita, and who worked closely with JMWAVE (the CIA station in Miami) officers Ted Shackley and David Sanchez Morales. Sforza posed as a casino gambler named “Frank Stevens.”
Countdown to Darkness also revealed that the pseudonym (for use in CIA reports and files) “Peter J. DiGerveno” belonged to Rodriguez while he was assigned to the CIA’s JMWAVE station in Miami. Sforza was the person behind the CIA cryptonym AMRYE-1, and was assigned the pseudonym “Henry J. Sloman” for his stay-behind work in Cuba and for use in his assignment at the JMWAVE station.
Into the Storm (Volume III, due out in December 2018) will reveal that both Rodriguez and Sforza worked closely with an American CIA contract agent in Havana, James Joseph O’Mailia, whose cover was as a professor of English at the University of Villanueva. By early 1960, O’Mailia had become the Agency’s principal go-between and cut-out to the Christian Democratic Movement (MDC) group and others being groomed to sabotage the Cuban economy and overthrow Castro.
During his research for Volume III, Newman discovered that O’Mailia was the person behind the CIA cryptonym AMCRACKLE-1, and that CIA documents used the pseudonym “Gordon M. Biniaris” for his work with the anti-Castro groups in Cuba.
O’Mailia’s profile in Havana matched that of a man using the name “Joe Melton.” Melton, according to Antonio Veciana — a militant leader of the paramilitary exile group, Alpha 66, who was involved in terrorist acts and attempts to assassinate Castro — was the American who trained him in sabotage and psychological warfare operations.
Veciana alleges that CIA propaganda expert David Phillips — using the name “Maurice Bishop” — was present for several of the training sessions. Moreover, Veciana has claimed that he met with Oswald and Phillips in a Dallas office building in September 1963 — shortly before Oswald went to Mexico City seeking a Cuban visa. Earlier this year the publication of Antonio Veciana’s memoir, Trained to Kill, was received very positively by some reviewers; for others, it has raised more questions than it answers. Familiarity with figures such as Rodriguez, Sforza and O’Mailia is required if we are to effectively evaluate claims that are presented as facts.
NARA released several records with Rodriguez’s AMIRE-1 cryptonym in the clear and the diagram for “Eugenio’s” stay-behind net in Cuba. On his net diagram were the names “Henry,” for “Henry Sloman” (Tony Sforza), and “Happy,” who may have been James O’Mailia. With NARA’s July 2017 release of JFK records, we now have the opportunity to check the predictions and assessments set forth in Countdown to Darkness. Many of the estimates in Newman’s Volumes II and III have been confirmed by the recently released files. We are getting dozens of crypts, pseudos, country digraphs, and operational codenames. In many instances their presence alongside of the already released documents permits many more new discoveries. An overall assessment will have to wait until everything has been released.
All three CIA operatives in Cuba were fortunate to escape from the island. Rodriguez and O’Mailia were arrested and imprisoned by Castro’s secret police. Sforza went underground until his escape by boat in mid-July 1961. Rodriguez, who had been arrested and held for six days before the invasion, was permitted to leave on an airplane to New Orleans at the time Sforza fled the island. O’Mailia, who was arrested during the exile invasion, was held in prison for three months and then he, too, was permitted to leave in mid-July. If Cuban authorities had realized the prominent roles these three figures would play in the CIA’s anti-Casto campaigns, they would certainly not ever have been allowed to leave Cuba alive.
Newman’s work not only resolves the multiple identities of the key CIA officers and agents who risked their lives in this Cuban-American drama, but also recounts the circumstances in which their flight from Cuba took place in the context of the disastrous Bay of Pigs. The claims, by top advisors to Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, that an exile invasion would trigger an uprising of the Cuban population against Castro were known to be false by those who made them.
In Volume II, Newman makes a persuasive case that the exile invasion was designed to fail in order to pave the way for a full-scale US invasion of the island. Castro’s victory on the beachhead in 1961 was blamed on the failure of the Kennedy administration to provide sufficient air support for the invaders. Along with the diplomatic resolution to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, these purported “betrayals” of those who died or were captured at Bahía de Cochinos would, in turn, form the context and a possible motive for the murder of the president.
So, here we are in 2017, the year that we are promised will solve some mysteries, answer some questions, and perhaps settle the case once and for all. Or not. We can be confident that some details of the JFK assassination story will no longer be hidden from us. Revelations such as those cited in this article provide valuable new pieces to our collective understanding; they allow us to measure our progress by improving upon previous assessments, and they assist us in getting closer to our ultimate objective: to put the puzzle together.
And you never know, there may be some other surprises in store for us. It is not unprecedented for materials that were thought to be lost or that were never documented at all to suddenly appear. When the son of the staff director to the Warren Commission contacted the ARRB and said that his father had died and there were 18 boxes of Warren Commission documents in his basement, did they want them? The answer was, “Well, yes we do.”
A final note of caution: Documents don’t always mean what they say or say what they mean. What they purport to reveal is seldom complete and may not be accurate, perhaps even false, especially when they are issued by intelligence agencies whose tradecraft includes deception and maintenance of “plausible deniability.” In cases where something that should be there is missing — such as the disappearance of Volume 5 of Oswald’s Security files — the significance of what is absent, what Professor Peter Dale Scott refers to as the negative template, is also informative.
Thanks to Malcolm Blunt, Bill Simpich, Dan Hardway, Peter Dale Scott, and Jerry Shinley for their contributions to this article. Special thanks to Milicent Cranor, Jimmy Falls, Klaus Marre, and Russ Baker for their invaluable assistance.
Alan Dale serves the noted FOIA attorney, Jim Lesar, as Director of the Assassination Archives and Research Center, aarclibrary.org, and is the host of JFK Conversations, jfkconversations.com. He is affiliated with the research groups JFK Lancer and CAPA, and is responsible for administration and content at https://jfkjmn.com.
 Postponement beyond the Oct. 26, 2017 deadline set 25 years ago by the JFK Assassination Records Act is possible if the president certifies that it is necessary to prevent an identifiable harm to military, defense, intelligence, law enforcement or foreign relations and that harm outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
The post 2017 JFK Document Release Shows Former Intelligence Analyst Got It Right appeared first on WhoWhatWhy.