David Atlee Phillips at LHO's press conference?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Bob wrote:ChristophMessner wrote:I had asked the Dallas Morning Star, but to no avail. Bob maybe you can call there and get somebody who lookes into the archives there for you. I will ask John B. Beckham as well.I'll keep looking as well...but it will really take some doing to convince me that it was NOT Phillips. Remember it was Gary Mack who said it was Rutledge. Mack doesn't exactly have a glowing track record when it comes to stating true facts.I see no "hard evidence" that he has a good track record with the truth either. Sorry, Bob. I just HAD to! LOL

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

ThomZajac wrote:Gotta be careful on this logic, Bob. Just because Mack says something, that doesn't mean it isn't true. On this one, let's keep open the possibility that John Rutledge and David Atlee Phillips bear an uncanny resemblence, and that the guy in the photo is Rutledge. It's possible, and that would make us look stupid, and it would make Mack actually look good. Let's not rush to judgement.All joking aside, Thom makes a VERY good point.

[ChristophMessner]

Yes, that's it. Thom hit the nail. We do not only need a photo of Ruthledge in the 60s, but research of Philipp's whereabouts on 22/11/1963. Where is Phillip's autobiographic manuscript? Who of you dug out Oli North's adress to ask him about Ed Lansdale's actions on 22/11/63? Gary Mack does not need denounciation. He needs profound counter-research.

[Bob]

ChristophMessner wrote:Yes, that's it. Thom hit the nail. We do not only need a photo of Ruthledge in the 60s, but research of Philipp's whereabouts on 22/11/1963. Where is Phillip's autobiographic manuscript? Who of you dug out Oli North's adress to ask him about Ed Lansdale's actions on 22/11/63? Gary Mack does not need denounciation. He needs profound counter-research.Chris...Oliver North is now a talking head on Fox News, which is akin to the Goebbels propaganda machine under Hitler. North would NEVER give any information, except DIS-information. I know that much about him from watching him lie to Congress about Iran/Contra and some of the other tales he voices on Fox. However, the search for verification about Phillips wherabouts on 11/22/1963 will continue. No response from Jim Marrs yet either.

[Bob]

I just heard from Wayne Madsen again about this. He thinks I am correct in my assertions. Again, Wayne was in Naval Intelligence and in the NSA. Wayne has also done a lot of research on the JFK assassination and the Bu$h family as an investigative reporter. Wayne also mentioned that Phillips still has a lot of defenders at the CIA, since he founded the organization below from some of his lawsuit money he gained by sueing some publications for libel with some of their accusations...http://www.afio.com/Also, please see this...Re: Understanding Our Own History (4.00 / 4) During the House Select Committee on Assassination's (HSCA) investigation into the death of President Kennedy, they found that David Atlee Phillips had lied. Who was he and why was this important?Phillips was in charge of Cuban propaganda operations and more during the early sixties. By the time of the HSCA, he had risen to the third most powerful position in the CIA - Chief of the Western Hemisphere. Phillips had used an alias "Maurice Bishop", and a highly credible witness (Antonio Veciana) had told the Church Committee, that he had seen "Bishop" with Oswald in Texas.The Church committee found enough evidence to connect CIA members to the assassination of President Kennedy that they dropped the issue like a hot potato. Fortunately, the American public, newly incensed by the first public airing of the Zapruder film, kept asking their members of Congress to investigate, and eventually the HSCA was formed. (Jim DiEugenio gives a much more interesting and detailed history in our book "The Assassinations.")Phillips was so concerned by the accusation that he had been seen with Oswald that he smoked three cigarettes at once in the presence of Dan Hardway and the others questioning him. Hardway and others had definite proof that Phillips had lied on specific matters and wanted very much to get a perjury charge filed against him. They knew if they could turn the screws on Phillips, he might divulge more details of what had really happened. The whole plot might have unravelled.Instead, as with Helms, no one had the stomach to go after David Phillips. If these guys had been responsible for the Kennedy assassination, and that was exposed, would that have brought the entire system down? Might it have implicated people still in positions of power or high finance? We'll never know, because no one dared go through that door.I hope this time it's different. But as someone who has seen this pattern repeated several times, and knowing how short our leaders are on moral courage, I'm not holding out any hopes. If we reward those who don't respect the law, who won't prosecute when really, they must - what does that make us? Cowards as well? Co-conspirators in the destruction of our country?Naivete and laziness are not excuses. We need to call for justice or we will never get it. "If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldesby Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 at 02:27:42 PM EST Re: Understanding Our Own History (none / 1) Something about David Phillips is wrong. Here's the email his nephew wrote:The "Confession", you refer to was not in so many words as such. I cannot remember the time frames involved, but this was what was told to me by my father, James Atlee Phillips, who is deceased. He said that David had called him with reference to his (Davids), invitation to a dinner, by a man who was purportedly writing a book on the CIA. At this dinner, was also present a man who was identified only as the "Driver". David told Jim that he knew the man was there to identify him as Raul Salcedo, whose name you should be familiar with, if your research is accurate in this matter. David then told Jim that he had written a letter to the various media, as a "Preemptive Strike" , against any and all allegations about his involvement in the JFK assassination. Jim knew that David was the head of the "Retired Intelligence Officers of the CIA", or some such organization, and that he was extremely critical of JFK, and his policies. Jim knew at that point, that David was in some way, seriously involved in this matter and he and David argued rather vehemently, resulting in a silent hiatus between them that lasted almost six years according to Jim. Finally, as David was dying of irreversible lung cancer, he called Jim and there was apparently no reconciliation between them, as Jim asked David pointedly, "Were you in Dallas on that day"? David said, "Yes", and Jim hung the phone up.Shawn Phillips is a musician. This is his website: http://www.shawnphillips.comHis family tie to David Atlee Phillips is explained here: http://www.shawnphillips.com/james.htmlby BooMan on Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 at 06:32:04 PM EST [ Parent ] Re: Understanding Our Own History (none / 1) Yep. Most serious researchers on the JFK case believe David Phillips was involved. So now an effort is underway to divorce his involvement from the CIA, predictably. I don't think that will wash! And Phillips' falling out with his brother reminds me of Ruth Paine, the woman who befriended Marina Oswald before the assassination. She had a similar falling out with her daughter, who came to believe her mother was in some way involved in the assassination.Ruth Paine was, oddly enough, taking notes in peace groups in Nicaragua during the Iran-Contra mess. Others in the group assumed she was spying on them. Ruth, of course, has never admitted to such. But her mother's friend was Allen Dulles's lover. Hmmmm. "If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldesby Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sat Dec 23rd, 2006 at 02:40:43 AM EST [ Parent ]

[ThomZajac]

GREAT post, Bob.Do you know if Jack White is still alive? He is, right? His take on the photo might be interesting. Do you know of a good way to contact him?

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:GREAT post, Bob.Do you know if Jack White is still alive? He is, right? His take on the photo might be interesting. Do you know of a good way to contact him?I believe Jack is alive. I recently posted his website in another thread. I will attempt to contact him as well. Good idea!

[Bob]

Guess what? I did hear back from Jack White. He thinks that Phillips is NOT the man in the photo, but he also said that there was a resemblance. I told Jack what Gary Mack had said about John Rutledge being the guy in the photo, but he didn't say who the guy indeed was. Jack thought that Phillips was too well known locally, as his home town was Fort Worth and some of the local press like Seth Kantor knew him. Jack did go on to say that he believed Phillips was indeed a conspirator. Bottom line, it was great to hear back from a noted researcher like Jack White so quickly.However, I am not giving up so easily, even though I have immense respect for Jack. Wim also has his doubts. But Wayne Madsen thinks I'm right, and he too is a noted investigative reporter. That whole press conference was like a Twilight Zone episode. The world was shell shocked because of the assassination. Also, remember that technology was nothing like we have nowadays with news on 24/7. Jack Ruby was there. Reporters knew him as well. Agent Hosty of the FBI was there. Why not someone in the CIA? Even if he was provably close to Oswald. So were Ruby and Hosty.

[kenmurray]

Bob wrote:Guess what? I did hear back from Jack White. He thinks that Phillips is NOT the man in the photo, but he also said that there was a resemblance. I told Jack what Gary Mack had said about John Rutledge being the guy in the photo, but he didn't say who the guy indeed was. Jack thought that Phillips was too well known locally, as his home town was Fort Worth and some of the local press like Seth Kantor knew him. Jack did go on to say that he believed Phillips was indeed a conspirator. Bottom line, it was great to hear back from a noted researcher like Jack White so quickly.However, I am not giving up so easily, even though I have immense respect for Jack. Wim also has his doubts. But Wayne Madsen thinks I'm right, and he too is a noted investigative reporter. That whole press conference was like a Twilight Zone episode. The world was shell shocked because of the assassination. Also, remember that technology was nothing like we have nowadays with news on 24/7. Jack Ruby was there. Reporters knew him as well. Agent Hosty of the FBI was there. Why not someone in the CIA? Even if he was provably close to Oswald. So were Ruby and Hosty.Bob, do you know what Jack's opinion is of whether Poppy Bush was in Dallas during the assassination?

[Bob]

I did bring that up in a follow up note to Jack, but I haven't heard back as of yet. I'm just guessing, but if Jack thinks that Phillips was a plotter, and knowing Phillips links to Poppy, I would think that Jack feels there is a connection.