If you are new to the JFK Puzzle you will be aware of the sheer amount of bewildering information that you have to wade through to find those nuggets of truth seemingly so well hidden. Even a seasoned researcher will still find themselves at a dead end when only moments before they were on a trail that promised one of those rare nuggets of truth.
But there is one constant in all the theories, people, scenarios, agencies, military groups, mafia etc (the list goes on) that will rear its ugly head everytime you pull up one of those nuggets of truth and that is the Central Intelligence Agency. I want , over the next few Blogs, to look at the CIA and a few of its operations, how it gained its automny and how it relates to the assassination..Many researchers will be all to familiar with the CIA and its workings but to those of you who are new to the game I hope to give you an introduction to the the Power of the CIA
Perhaps first of all it is important to look briefly at how the CIA came into being.
The OSS (Office of Strategic Services) was formed in order to coordinate espionage activities behind enemy lines for the branches of the United States Army during World War II. After the war Hoover persuaded President Truman to close down the OSS by telling him it would become an American Gestapo (himself fearing that the OSS would rival the FBI in power!)
In 1947 Former OSS Member Frank Wisner, was recruited to the department of Occupied Territories and moved to Washington where he began to socialize with a group that became known as the Georgetown Set amongst this group were Richard Bissell (eventually would replace Wisner as head of DPP), Tracey Barnes (eventually in charge of Operation Success), Cord Meyer (to marry Mary Pinchot and become an integral part of Mockingbird and the CIA), Richard Helms (eventually to become deputy to Bissell), James Angleton (eventually chief of counter intelligence), Allen Dulles (eventually Director of the CIA), Desmond Fitzgerald (eventually chief of the Cuban Task Force) amongst others..These names many of you will recognise.
The CIA was formed in September 1947 using the OSS as its model..When Wisner became Director of the OPC (Counter Intelligence Branch of CIA), and with Dulles as the CIA Deputy director he established:
Operation Mockingbird this was aimed at influencing the American Media and by the early 50s Wisner apparently “owned” many of the prominent members of the Media (News Week, CBS), Cord Meyer became a central operative in the operation and by the time Dulles became director in 1953 the operation had a major influence over many of the Media organisations run by people such as Henry Luce (for those who dont know Luce is the man that bought the Zapruder Film and kept it locked away from the Public), Alfred Friendly and William Paley and through Bribes to journalists and publishers using funds redirected from the Marshall Plan the CIA suddenly had the means to influence the Masses. One of the most important journalists under the control of Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine) Walter Pincus (washington Post) and many more.. . These journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Wisner .The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work
According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA), in the 1950s, “some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts”. Wisner was also able to restrict newspapers from reporting about certain events. For example, the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran and Guatemala.
Now Cast your mind to the aftermath of the Hit and look at the way the media reacted, look how Information on Oswald was in the Papers within Hours, or the blanket reaction of the press that it was a lone gunman and that was that ..Coincidence?? Finally look at the CIA memorandum on how to deal with those in opposition to the official conclusion of the Warren Report which is copied below for you to peruse, a distillation of Mockingbird?
CIA Document #1035-960, marked “PSYCH” for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division “CS”, the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the “dirty tricks” department.
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission’s records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy’s brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator. He was a “loner,” mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. <archivist’s note:=”” this=”” claim=”” is=”” demonstrably=”” untrue=”” with=”” the=”” latest=”” file=”” releases.=”” cia=”” had=”” an=”” operational=”” interest=”” in=”” oswald=”” less=”” than=”” a=”” month=”” before=”” assassination.=”” source:=”” and=”” cia,=”” john=”” newman=”” newly=”” released=”” files=”” from=”” national=”” archives.=””>
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the “ten mysterious deaths” line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Next time we shall be looking at the CIA and Guatemala
Thanks for reading!