OPERATION ZIPPER:

[ChristophMessner]

I wonder how schizophrenic Dave Phillips was, orchestrating all those things and keeping secret about them. His storys must have been like a valve to a second reality to him, in which he could justify his deeds. I wonder about us, too, studiing him vigorously while we leave the present "secret orchestrating heads" of the covert operations world unstudied. Was he the pre-pattern for the present operations? How is the reliability of keeping-silent-till-death created today? My guess is, the Anaconda is no anagramm, it's the snakishness as metaphor itself, which tells the thing. Phillips was a snake himself, producing "giant snakes" like "barbaric indians" or "communists" all over the world threatening him, but he - of course - overpowers and remains the biggest one. It was Kissinger's plan to sabotage democratic and socialist movements in South and Middle America to keep South America no political threat to his vision of North American world domination. And Phillips was one of the main right arms of his predecessors. Probably the giant snake refers to all political enemies of David Phillips, not only in South America but in North America and the rest of the world, too, including the Kennedy's, just all who sympathize with or go soft on collectivism. Randy, your elaborate input is a great insipiration, thanks a lot!

[Randy Bednorz]

Bob quotes the Costner "JFK" line -- "thinking outside the box."I have retired friends whose careers had been in law enforcement. One of them had still bought the Warren Report fable. Point being -- if you assume that the actual assassination was a conventional crime, you will gather evidence, analyze evidence and theorize conclusions based on that approach.From the start, though, there has to be some sort of evidence to impel you to shift gears. One thing I'm still sorting out, despite a sense of being on very firm ground -- what the analysis of "assassination literature" tells us. Consider, for instance, Posner and "Case Closed." What set of evidence does he consider in the book? The Warren Commission "set!" Which, as we all assume here, is not the complete set -- but a sub-set. And as I said before, some of the authors almost pick the evidence to support conclusions -- and exclude other relevant facts. But a "complete" theory would have all the facts consistent with the theory. If there are inconsistencies, there must be an explanation for the inconsistencies, and the explanation must be part of the theory.Now what about the "set of theories" I propose? That is: a set of scenarios, all of them with Phillips at the center." Even now, for instance, you have threads on this forum emphasiziing Sam Giancana's role. There's no doubt in my mind that the Mafia "had a role." Phillips -- even his brother who had been a Fort Worth police chief -- had access to Mafia resources. David Sanchez Morales dealt with Johnny Roselli as "Col. Roselli" at the South Florida CIA station. Take a look again at the story about the watch and the oilman. In 1963, there weren't any digital watches. A great number of Timex, Rolex and other models had a white background. And the typical pre-digital clock, watch or other timepiece is depicted with a white background and black hands. How many fingers on a "hand?" Five. And what had been the synonym for the precursor of the American Mafia? The Black Hand. In Phillips' story, he has an oil-man, with an airplane, fitted with a double-bed suggesting a relationship with CIA, wearing a watch bearing nothing but fives for the hours of the day, so he can lie to his wife about when he started drinking that day. In other words, the fives and the hands of the watch are not at the center of the Lie. They're a "cover-story" and scape-goat.Again, we're "interpreting," we're poking around the the field of speculation, but Phillips' story is real -- it is . . . forensic literary evidence in a forensic literary analysis.Not long ago, in Los Angeles, there was an arsonist afoot. Arson in Southern California has become a particularly devastating concern. The police began to notice that a particular LA fireman was unexplainably close to the fires suspected of being arson fires.Eventually, the fireman decided to write a novel. He used the actual facts of his guilt to construct the novel, and the novel became evidence in a court-proceeding that convicted him.I can tell -- and I could tell yesterday and the day before -- where I'm going with this. I also wanted to answer Mr. Messner's post, because he, too, had made a salient point. So -- "break time" -- time for breakfast . . .

[Randy Bednorz]

ChristophMessner wrote:I wonder how schizophrenic Dave Phillips was, orchestrating all those things and keeping secret about them. His storys must have been like a valve to a second reality to him, in which he could justify his deeds. If you read Russell's "Man Who Knew Too Much," he devotes considerable attention to Win Scott's death and the flurry of activity about his unpublished manuscript, "Foul Foe." Angleton and Helms were all over that Dallas home of Scott's, getting into his safe, sanitizing anything that might be there. They took "Foul Foe" back to Langley. The story inspired me to find the declassified chapters of the book -- only two of them in total -- when I spent a month at NARA/College-Park's JFK Records Collection. I think you'll find in Russell's narrative something about Scott's interest in the psychology of someone in that office -- the Mexico City CIA Station -- and how that psychology was vulnerable to movement among adversarial elements of the intelligence world -- how something may have "snapped." And so have I mailed US Senators twice to pressure them into declassifying the rest of the book.In the sense that Russell's implications insinuate something, your categorization of "schizophrenic" seems almost acceptable, but I don't think it is clinically accurate. Take that together with Helms' omissions in "Over My Shoulder" about psychological screening in 1950. In the late '60s or early '70s, Helms had asked Phillips to write a eulogy about Wisner for Helms to deliver at the Langley dedication of a fresco commemorating the dead director. Wisner's health had declined. He caught hepatitis from some bad oysters during a trip to Greece in the late 1950s, followed by something like a complete nervous breakdown. It was fashionable in those days to undergo electro-shock therapy, and Wisner never completely recovered from it. He languished in his office for several months, and then retired, not too long after the Bay of Pigs failure. [It could've been before, but if so, it most likely occurred during the advanced planning stages, described by Hunt, Powers and others. We can easily get the specifics on that little chronological detail.]Then Leland Kirkpatrick, the CIA Inspector General at that time, wanted to publish a report from his office about the failure. Wisner left his retirement home, stormed through the main doors of Langley, and threw a tantrum about publishing "anything on paper" about secret operations. Not long after that, he took a pistol and blew his brains out. Helms had been Wisner's assistant, and he says in his 2003 memoir that Wisner pleased himself before his decline by sitting in his office dreaming up bizarre covert-ops, while Helms handled the day-to-day administrative duties.Phillips' papers at Library of Congress contain the draft of the eulogy written by Phillips, and I believe there are notes explaining Helms' request. But those boxes of papers also contain the actual eulogy Helms used at the dedication -- and it is not that of Phillips. I need to resurrect the digital snaps I made of the documents when I was there if I have them. And I think I do have them. Tentatively, I think Helms suspected something even then. What does it mean, when you spent the remainder of your life in retirement, and write a memoir entitled "A Look Over My Shoulder?" ChristophMessner wrote:I wonder about us, too, studiing him vigorously while we leave the present "secret orchestrating heads" of the covert operations world unstudied. Was he the pre-pattern for the present operations? How is the reliability of keeping-silent-till-death created today? The Church Committee and related legislation may have put a kibosh on CIA excesses. Bella Abzug and others were especially incensed at CIA's involvement with mass-media. But I doubt that anyone at that time took seriously a connection between Dealey Plaza and a book and film-release that preceded it. There may not be anything in print from CIA files -- except Phillips' insinuations -- that confirms involvement of the agency in the book itself, or the Frankenheimer-Axelrod film-production. What we see in "Night Watch" [and I have yet to unfurl discoveries in the other books] comes from Phillips' own experience, his mind and his perception.But I think you're correct to feel a sense of concern about what most of us absorb from TV like a sponge takes water. We could also be concerned about the implications of the recent Fort Hood attack -- there's a "propaganda of action" -- but it's out of sequence. I don't even want to pursue how that might become relevant in some future scenario, the thought of which I'd rather purge from my mind.Finally, you grasp an essential possibility that doesn't inspire some assassination-history enthusiasts. Phillips himself may have been deeply disturbed; in context of Tim Weiner's recent book on CIA and the long history of money laundering, when you consider Fonzi's recount about his interviews with Veciana, Phillips had access to large sums of cash no more subject to internal controls or accurate accounting than the billions CIA scattered across the globe as "asset-inducements." Cash is an important resource; people -- like Oswald, the "Cowboys" from South Florida, the Mafia assets -- all resources that Phillips may have manipulated by himself. That's one extreme version of what I call "a valid set of Dealey-Plaza theories" -- and I will tell you right now -- I no longer seriously entertain the slightest possibility that anything outside that set has any validity whatsoever. I'll explain that, when we boil all this down into some very simple logical hypotheses, inferences, and conclusions.ChristophMessner wrote:My guess is, the Anaconda is no anagramm, it's the snakishness as metaphor itself, which tells the thing. Phillips was a snake himself, producing "giant snakes" like "barbaric indians" or "communists" all over the world threatening him, but he - of course - overpowers and remains the biggest one. It was Kissinger's plan to sabotage democratic and socialist movements in South and Middle America to keep South America no political threat to his vision of North American world domination. And Phillips was one of the main right arms of his predecessors. Probably the giant snake refers to all political enemies of David Phillips, not only in South America but in North America and the rest of the world, too, including the Kennedy's, just all who sympathize with or go soft on collectivism. As I said, when I discovered these passages, I had to pinch myself. First it is quite stunning in a way. But it's an insinuation. However, I have you beat in a probabilistic angle: There are no snakes that size in the Amazon which are not called "Anaconda" -- all five or six species or sub-species have that name. Moreover, it is totally consistent with the passages I posted from page 58 and 59. Remember that I said something earlier about "consistency" in a field of evidence? These latter pages were the first I found. It actually took me months from the time I thought the snake story was relevant, to a consideration of a word describing the snake as a possible anagram.Finally, Phillips was a literary scholar fluent and well-read in Spanish and probably Portuguese -- and this has more far-reaching implications than may apply to this discussion. Whether he was actually conscious of it, all of our "interpretations" may be quite valid here, including yours. It's like that business about causation I mentioned earlier: mulitiple causes and explanations can't be mutually exclusive unless there is some imperative that restricts them to mutual exclusion. There is no such imperative here -- yet.

[ChristophMessner]

Randy Bednorz wrote:Bob quotes the Costner "JFK" line -- "thinking outside the box."I have retired friends whose careers had been in law enforcement. One of them had still bought the Warren Report fable. Point being -- if you assume that the actual assassination was a conventional crime, you will gather evidence, analyze evidence and theorize conclusions based on that approach.From the start, though, there has to be some sort of evidence to impel you to shift gears. One thing I'm still sorting out, despite a sense of being on very firm ground -- what the analysis of "assassination literature" tells us. Consider, for instance, Posner and "Case Closed." What set of evidence does he consider in the book? The Warren Commission "set!" Which, as we all assume here, is not the complete set -- but a sub-set. And as I said before, some of the authors almost pick the evidence to support conclusions -- and exclude other relevant facts. But a "complete" theory would have all the facts consistent with the theory. If there are inconsistencies, there must be an explanation for the inconsistencies, and the explanation must be part of the theory. It's logical that you see the world through the lens of your eyes, another lens sees other things. But not completely other things. Believing in the single bullet theory to me is still like seeing a straight line while there are many curves. One dimension, two dimensions, three dimensions, ... Randy Bednorz wrote:Now what about the "set of theories" I propose? That is: a set of scenarios, all of them with Phillips at the center." Even now, for instance, you have threads on this forum emphasiziing Sam Giancana's role. There's no doubt in my mind that the Mafia "had a role." Phillips -- even his brother who had been a Fort Worth police chief -- had access to Mafia resources. David Sanchez Morales dealt with Johnny Roselli as "Col. Roselli" at the South Florida CIA station. So one person in the center of it all? Didn't Phillips have to coordinate with Lansdale and Dulles on the same level? But ok, if he was the mastermind center of the JFK assassination, he certainly did not only manage JFK to be shot in the head open air, but to separate the wheat from the chaff inside the CIA, didn't he? Randy Bednorz wrote:Take a look again at the story about the watch and the oilman. In 1963, there weren't any digital watches. A great number of Timex, Rolex and other models had a white background. And the typical pre-digital clock, watch or other timepiece is depicted with a white background and black hands. How many fingers on a "hand?" Five. And what had been the synonym for the precursor of the American Mafia? The Black Hand. In Phillips' story, he has an oil-man, with an airplane, fitted with a double-bed suggesting a relationship with CIA, wearing a watch bearing nothing but fives for the hours of the day, so he can lie to his wife about when he started drinking that day. In other words, the fives and the hands of the watch are not at the center of the Lie. They're a "cover-story" and scape-goat.Bush senior also a puppet in Phillips fingers? Randy Bednorz wrote:Again, we're "interpreting," we're poking around the the field of speculation, but Phillips' story is real -- it is . . . forensic literary evidence in a forensic literary analysis.Correct. Randy Bednorz wrote:Not long ago, in Los Angeles, there was an arsonist afoot. Arson in Southern California has become a particularly devastating concern. The police began to notice that a particular LA fireman was unexplainably close to the fires suspected of being arson fires.Eventually, the fireman decided to write a novel. He used the actual facts of his guilt to construct the novel, and the novel became evidence in a court-proceeding that convicted him. Wasn't that fireman schizophrenic then? Aren't firemen there to extinct fire? Aren't CIA chiefs there to protect the president? Randy Bednorz wrote:ChristophMessner wrote:I wonder how schizophrenic Dave Phillips was, orchestrating all those things and keeping secret about them. His storys must have been like a valve to a second reality to him, in which he could justify his deeds. ... They took "Foul Foe" back to Langley. The story inspired me to find the declassified chapters of the book -- only two of them in total -- when I spent a month at NARA/College-Park's JFK Records Collection. I think you'll find in Russell's narrative something about Scott's interest in the psychology of someone in that office -- the Mexico City CIA Station -- and how that psychology was vulnerable to movement among adversarial elements of the intelligence world -- how something may have "snapped." And so have I mailed US Senators twice to pressure them into declassifying the rest of the book.Wow! And? Did they declassify? And how did that book deepen your knowledge about how the CIA prevented that snapping? Randy Bednorz wrote:In the sense that Russell's implications insinuate something, your categorization of "schizophrenic" seems almost acceptable, but I don't think it is clinically accurate. Take that together with Helms' omissions in "Over My Shoulder" about psychological screening in 1950. In the late '60s or early '70s, Helms had asked Phillips to write a eulogy about Wisner for Helms to deliver at the Langley dedication of a fresco commemorating the dead director. Wisner's health had declined. He caught hepatitis from some bad oysters during a trip to Greece in the late 1950s, followed by something like a complete nervous breakdown. It was fashionable in those days to undergo electro-shock therapy, and Wisner never completely recovered from it. He languished in his office for several months, and then retired, not too long after the Bay of Pigs failure. [It could've been before, but if so, it most likely occurred during the advanced planning stages, described by Hunt, Powers and others. We can easily get the specifics on that little chronological detail.]Then Leland Kirkpatrick, the CIA Inspector General at that time, wanted to publish a report from his office about the failure. Wisner left his retirement home, stormed through the main doors of Langley, and threw a tantrum about publishing "anything on paper" about secret operations. Not long after that, he took a pistol and blew his brains out. Helms had been Wisner's assistant, and he says in his 2003 memoir that Wisner pleased himself before his decline by sitting in his office dreaming up bizarre covert-ops, while Helms handled the day-to-day administrative duties.Phillips' papers at Library of Congress contain the draft of the eulogy written by Phillips, and I believe there are notes explaining Helms' request. But those boxes of papers also contain the actual eulogy Helms used at the dedication -- and it is not that of Phillips. I need to resurrect the digital snaps I made of the documents when I was there if I have them. And I think I do have them. Tentatively, I think Helms suspected something even then. What does it mean, when you spent the remainder of your life in retirement, and write a memoir entitled "A Look Over My Shoulder?"Maybe those chiefs of agents cannot be called schizophrenic but multilayer truth jongleurs. Randy Bednorz wrote:... accounting than the billions CIA scattered across the globe as "asset-inducements." Cash is an important resource; people -- like Oswald, the "Cowboys" from South Florida, the Mafia assets -- all resources that Phillips may have manipulated by himself. You really center a lot into that man. How could the money donators be sure, that they could trust Phillips, he wouldn't take away that money for himself? Randy Bednorz wrote:That's one extreme version of what I call "a valid set of Dealey-Plaza theories" -- and I will tell you right now -- I no longer seriously entertain the slightest possibility that anything outside that set has any validity whatsoever. I'll explain that, when we boil all this down into some very simple logical hypotheses, inferences, and conclusions.Isn't it boiling already? Randy Bednorz wrote:ChristophMessner wrote:My guess is, the Anaconda is no anagramm, it's the snakishness as metaphor itself, which tells the thing. Phillips was a snake himself, producing "giant snakes" like "barbaric indians" or "communists" all over the world threatening him, but he - of course - overpowers and remains the biggest one. It was Kissinger's plan to sabotage democratic and socialist movements in South and Middle America to keep South America no political threat to his vision of North American world domination. And Phillips was one of the main right arms of his predecessors. Probably the giant snake refers to all political enemies of David Phillips, not only in South America but in North America and the rest of the world, too, including the Kennedy's, just all who sympathize with or go soft on collectivism. As I said, when I discovered these passages, I had to pinch myself. First it is quite stunning in a way. But it's an insinuation. However, I have you beat in a probabilistic angle: There are no snakes that size in the Amazon which are not called "Anaconda" -- all five or six species or sub-species have that name. Moreover, it is totally consistent with the passages I posted from page 58 and 59. Remember that I said something earlier about "consistency" in a field of evidence? These latter pages were the first I found. It actually took me months from the time I thought the snake story was relevant, to a consideration of a word describing the snake as a possible anagram.Finally, Phillips was a literary scholar fluent and well-read in Spanish and probably Portuguese -- and this has more far-reaching implications than may apply to this discussion. Whether he was actually conscious of it, all of our "interpretations" may be quite valid here, including yours. It's like that business about causation I mentioned earlier: mulitiple causes and explanations can't be mutually exclusive unless there is some imperative that restricts them to mutual exclusion. There is no such imperative here -- yet.So the Anaconda is an anagram for a Spanish word? But why then did he manage to shoot the snake into the head another two times like with Kennedy? Was Kennedy threatening the CIA-projected policy in South America as well? Did the Kennedy-snake "eat up" (=infected with socialism) 10 South American states (in which Indians lived)?

[Phil Dragoo]

You mention 1997 in re the Pitt-Freeman head-in-the-box but outside the box that year were Conspiracy Theory and Enemy of the State.Conspiracy Theory in which Mel Gibson reverts due to a strobe effect of construction light through a ventilating fan. Patrick Stewart as the Sidney Gottlieb. The whole an homage to MK-ULTRA. Gibson posits the ability to cause earthquakes in order to explain necessary deaths. Mind control, assassination, conspiracies, propaganda.Enemy of the State in which Will Smith uncovers the assassination of the supreme court justice, is pursued by John Voight and the NSA, protected by former-NSA operative Gene Hackman. Surveillance, manipulation, control, propaganda, wet work on speed-dial.Ian Fleming wrote of a world he knew; Hunt and Phillips wanted a world they could simultaneously depict, inhabit, control--hence, author-actor, agent-propagandist.The appearance of Condon in book and film may have served to implicate the foreign hand in assassination, something Angleton suppressed Nosenko for pooh-poohing.Fort Hood presents something to you, Randy. What.

[Bob]

Phil Dragoo wrote:You mention 1997 in re the Pitt-Freeman head-in-the-box but outside the box that year were Conspiracy Theory and Enemy of the State.Conspiracy Theory in which Mel Gibson reverts due to a strobe effect of construction light through a ventilating fan. Patrick Stewart as the Sidney Gottlieb. The whole an homage to MK-ULTRA. Gibson posits the ability to cause earthquakes in order to explain necessary deaths. Mind control, assassination, conspiracies, propaganda.Enemy of the State in which Will Smith uncovers the assassination of the supreme court justice, is pursued by John Voight and the NSA, protected by former-NSA operative Gene Hackman. Surveillance, manipulation, control, propaganda, wet work on speed-dial.Ian Fleming wrote of a world he knew; Hunt and Phillips wanted a world they could simultaneously depict, inhabit, control--hence, author-actor, agent-propagandist.The appearance of Condon in book and film may have served to implicate the foreign hand in assassination, something Angleton suppressed Nosenko for pooh-poohing.Fort Hood presents something to you, Randy. What.Phil...are you possibly inferring mind control use on Hasan to create furor against Muslims once again so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which the CIA endorses) continue into infinity?

[Randy Bednorz]

ChristophMessner wrote:So one person in the center of it all? Didn't Phillips have to coordinate with Lansdale and Dulles on the same level? But ok, if he was the mastermind center of the JFK assassination, he certainly did not only manage JFK to be shot in the head open air, but to separate the wheat from the chaff inside the CIA, didn't he? It is more likely he would coordinate with Lansdale, for two reasons: Lansdale's "reputation" for bizarre psy-war projects around the globe; and the evidence that he was there that day when he was supposed to be somewhere else. Lansdale had built his entire career on Vietnam. From the time he set up the Saigon Military Mission in 1952, through the Diem election of 1955, and beyond the assassination to his re-arrival in Vietnam some several weeks before the Gulf of Tonkin episode. Now we have a declassified document authored by Lansdale for an "Operation Northwoods" project to blow up a real American naval ship in Guantanamo Bay, create real American casualties, and use as a provocation against Castro. And the project description suggests the use of phony radio calls to imlicate Castro -- similar to the radio intercepts at Gulf of Tonkin. Lansdale's legendary psy-war projects deserve mention, but let's take it up later. "Coordination" with Dulles, on the other hand, is only much less likely. The question is: Who was intimately familiar with the details of the cover-up plan in such a way that they'd also have to know what would happen to JFK in Dealey Plaza and how it would happen? That would only be Phillips. If you were "running" Oswald from February 1, 1961 up to the day of the assassination, so you would have coached him to buy the Carcano under a name like Alex Hidell and managed his every move, you would've known the rest of it. And it would only be Phillips if he saw it as a psy-war project -- even his own. Dulles would not be familiar with those details -- he may only have been somehow informed that "something would happen." It's interesting, though, that he was out of the country that day.ChristophMessner wrote:Bush senior also a puppet in Phillips fingers? That's an interesting question. Recorded remarks of Felix Rodriguez about Bush at South Florida, insinuations about Bush's role in getting the ships for Operation Zapata, all such things inform and color our suspicions. But even as "financier," Bush's "position" in a CIA pecking order at that time may have been more modest than his standing in the Dallas Petroleum Club, or his congressional campaign in Houston. All these civilian intelligence assets soaked up the media just like the rest of us: They were "James Bond" fans -- probably. Any opportunity to fit in and serve in a "real" capacity would've given them an adrenalin rush and sense of patriotic accomplishment.Kitty Kelly's biography of Bush describes his speaking engagement elsewhere in Texas on the day Kennedy was killed. He was called to take a phone call, as witnesses described it. So, first he received a telephone call.The Final Report of the ARRB (1999?) explains the fairly well-known story about a "Mr. Bush of the CIA" phoning Hoover to report a possible conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The only CIA "Bush" at that time was a GS-9 clerk, who could not have made that call. And there was a US Army General Bush noted in Dulles' calendar. But in addition to Hoover's memorandum to file of November 29, someone has also turned up a November 22 memorandum by a Graham Kitchel, confirming that the call came from George H. W. Bush of Zapata Oil. I'm attaching that document, which I just found between starting this answer, and getting to this point of it.The fact of the matter, though, is that Dulles had a meeting noted in his calendar with the other "Maj. Gen. George Bush." And the ARRB's final report says, as follows: "There was no indication if this General Bush could be the referenced George Bush." And you have to ask yourself what that means. If you look at the ARRB discussion of Phillips and Veciana (and I think Phillips' real name is excluded to leave only the "Maurice Bishop" pseudonym) -- you wonder what you can trust about the ARRB, its findings and its final report. The ARRB report about "Bishop" and Veciana, seems to dismiss its significance. And we know better. ChristophMessner wrote:Wasn't that fireman schizophrenic then? Aren't firemen there to extinct fire? Aren't CIA chiefs there to protect the president? It's pretty clear that the South Florida contingent of Operation Zapata blamed Kennedy. There's some considerable motive there. It is equally possible that some of those people were in Dealey Plaza as honored spectators, or that they didn't know how their mission there fit a larger scheme of things, or that they knew as much as whoever had staged Oswald as a "lone-nut."Let's have an initial go at "Phillips alone, with CIA resources" as opposed to a larger "conspiracy." But I have to say here -- as a principle of plausible deniability -- the grand beneficiaries at the highest level of such a crime are more likely "presbyters." They don't know the details; they may not be sure of much anything. Or they may know the essential fact with certainty, but not the details or the personnel. Somebody had to be so close to it to know everything. Consider this: If the cover-story dovetails with a wider understanding of recent media "pre-propaganda," knowledge of a film as CIA project, the timing of the film release and the actual assassination, then the "sheep-dipping" of Oswald had to be an elaborate undertaking. This becomes even more obvious when you do a comparison of Oswald as "character" in the assassination, and the fictional Raymond Shaw character in "Manchurian Candidate." I want to return to this topic.If full knowledge -- technical guilt in a conspiracy -- is at a fairly low level of restriction within CIA, then it explains how it has remained such a mystery all this time. In the extreme, if Phillips -- either conferring with some few presbyters, or by himself -- used resources at his disposal to accomplish it, and if the link between pre-propaganda and propaganda-of-action can be better established as a probability, then what you have there is a more restricted conspiracy in terms of "personnel," but a more insidious conspiracy in terms of either intentional -- or actual impact. This restricted knowledge scenario also explains why some have been able to argue that "if there were a conspiracy, someone would've said something."My point here: Someone did. George Will, the conservative American newspaper columnist, asserted in 2003 that "all those document declassifications didn't prove anything." So he is still calling the rest of us "conspiracy nuts." But what if the combination of document declassifications and evidence hidden in plain sight leads to potent conclusions that cannot be denied or refuted? Then Will is full of baloney, as they say. On the rest of your remarks, there are clinical definitions of narcissistic personality disorder, and the symptoms and personal history that would confirm or support conclusions about its instance. Similarly, there are clinical definitions of paranoia, and in Angleton's case, it was actually diagnosed.Schizophrenia is something different.The "Foul Foe" declassified chapters were chosen according to 92 Records Act and ARRB criteria of "relevance to the assassination." Even before ARRB board members were picked and before they went to work, CIA, FBI, NSA and Secret Service were scrambling to proceed in such a way that left them on the high ground -- especially CIA. They wanted to make the sole determination of "relevance." They had to start all over, with ARRB scrutiny.But mistakes may have occurred, even for lack of knowledge about suspects. Even since 2000, books have been written which quote Phillips as a "reliable government witness." That's like the farmer asking the fox who stole the chickens "Did you see the fox?" And the fox says "He went thata-way!"So when they chose parts of "Foul Foe" to declassify, they were the chapters that dealt exclusively with Oswald.On the matter of suitcases of cash: Check Tim Weiner's 2007 book, "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA." Veciana had told Fonzi that Phillips brought a suitcase filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars to a meeting earlier in their relationship.Donald Freed's research about the assassination of Orlando Letelier points to E. Howard Hunt as Nixon bag-man, bringing a million dollars to the White-House from ITT, and Phillips carrying more like $10 million to Chile to buy radio and TV stations, newspapers and other media in the orchestrated overthrow of Salvador Allende.Weiner points out that any career CIA operative who dealt with "assets" and partisan anti-communist groups could walk into a US Embassy somewhere, request the cash, and walk out with currency in a suitcase. There was never any accounting for this money, and there was never any followup to see if its use in that way actually did any good -- or, extrapolating to Phillips -- how it was actually used.When I said "Anaconda" might be an anagram, I mean that you could rearrange the letters to spell something similar to "Condon." For Phillips' education, there is a general description of "liberal arts and literature," with specific background in Spanish and probably Portuguese. This will be more relevant if I can eventually post some more . . . . revelations.

[Randy Bednorz]

Bob wrote:Phil Dragoo wrote:You mention 1997 in re the Pitt-Freeman head-in-the-box but outside the box that year were Conspiracy Theory and Enemy of the State.Conspiracy Theory in which Mel Gibson reverts due to a strobe effect of construction light through a ventilating fan. Patrick Stewart as the Sidney Gottlieb. The whole an homage to MK-ULTRA. Gibson posits the ability to cause earthquakes in order to explain necessary deaths. Mind control, assassination, conspiracies, propaganda.Enemy of the State in which Will Smith uncovers the assassination of the supreme court justice, is pursued by John Voight and the NSA, protected by former-NSA operative Gene Hackman. Surveillance, manipulation, control, propaganda, wet work on speed-dial.Ian Fleming wrote of a world he knew; Hunt and Phillips wanted a world they could simultaneously depict, inhabit, control--hence, author-actor, agent-propagandist.The appearance of Condon in book and film may have served to implicate the foreign hand in assassination, something Angleton suppressed Nosenko for pooh-poohing.Fort Hood presents something to you, Randy. What.Phil...are you possibly inferring mind control use on Hasan to create furor against Muslims once again so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which the CIA endorses) continue into infinity?In the midst of my own data collection, hypothesis formulation and theorizing, I became distressed at the recent remake (Denzel Washington) of "Manchurian Candidate." It obscures the original's relevance to Cold War history, when we still do not have a complete understanding or consensus about that history. And Bob -- Yes! -- I'm concerned that we live in a dangerous time, and I can see more than one scenario where the Fort Hood episode -- even perpetrated by a lone nut -- can affect decision-making about Afghanistan, and I can imagine -- even as Fort Hood seems to be the work of a lone-nut, how it can be used to play toward something I'd rather not pursue here. Nobody wants to see history repeat itself.I'd like to eventually discuss Phil's remark and the Angleton-Nosenko history with the HONETOL mole-hunts at length.

[Bob]

Randy, speaking of the anagram situation regarding Anaconda that can mean Condon, you also have the Bush (George W.) family using the name Arbusto as the name of their failed oil company of the 80's, that was invested in by the bin Laden family. While that was happening, Poppy and friends were involved in the events of Mena (Slick Willie was there too) and Iran/Contra while Ronny "slept". Plus, Ronny and Poppy were also arming a couple of guys named Saddam and Osama in their struggles vs. the Iranians and the Soviets in Afghanistan respectively. Oh...I don't want to leave out son Neil as well, since he was a big time player in the Savings and Loan scandal of that time period.

[Randy Bednorz]

I agree on all what you say there, Bob. There's no doubt in my mind that my country has been governed by power-elites since God-knows-when. There was always "propaganda," if you go back hundreds of years to review the overtly salacious things that were said in the heat of presidential campaigns. But "mass-media" was limited to print; and print was limited to a literate population.Ellul remarks in the 1964 book that "the educated" are most susceptible to the influence of propaganda. Certainly. They are the ones most exposed to it. It's everywhere, in the different varieties. You can argue that "power-elites" are a cliche' that feeds an argument, and an argument is propaganda. Granted. No different than the phrase "conspiracy-nut" and its long term effect in rumor, comment and cliche'. But mass-media changes all that. Goebbels saw it. Laswell saw it. CIA saw it and spent money on the refinement of techniques. As I said, I have a friend retired from law-enforcement. I'd mentioned the later history of Phillips' involvement in the Chilean coup -- the overthrow of Allende -- just as you mention the Bush family's early ties to the Bin Ladens and other aspects. My friend reacted as might lawyers prosecuting a case: "You can't do that . . . ." But we're interested in who executed and planned the details of both an assassination and a coverup, and beginning with Oswald, many key suspects are dead. Where is the line between "rules of evidence" and court-admissable fact, and a field -- a search-space -- with facts and probabilistic reasoning?