From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 16:00:15 1992 Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2) id AA10931; Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:00:13 -0500 Message-Id: <9212152100.AA10931@css.itd.umich.edu> From: jad@ckuxb.att.com Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:56 EST To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu Status: O X-Status: Article 17664 of alt.conspiracy: Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!jad From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa Subject: Part 24, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy Keywords: researchers'revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy Message-ID: <1992Nov30.205913.8043@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Date: 30 Nov 92 20:59:13 GMT Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host Lines: 156 I made the following transcript from a tape recording of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station WBAI-FM (99.5) 505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl. New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (continuation) JIM MARRS: You're right. And it seems pretty incomprehensible that the same media outlets that would basically cause the destruction of Nixon would try to cover up about Kennedy, but I think there is some rationale there. First off, to explain why they do this, you go back to the time of the assassination -- and I think Jerry Policoff would agree with me on this. This was a whole entirely different time and place: this country. Okay? A lot of people within the media actively, voluntarily participated and did things for the intelligence community out of the noblest of purposes. They felt like they were being patriotic. If they went to Russia, say, and did a story and they came back, and the CIA domestic contact services officer would come to them and say: "Well, what did you see?" They would tell them what they saw. They weren't spies. They weren't working for the Government. They weren't on the payroll. They were simply doing what they thought was patriotic. Now, at the time of the Kennedy Assassination and for maybe ten years past then, until about the time of the Garrison investigation, they were still clinging to this idea. They felt like they were doing something good. Now, I think a lot of them can probably look back and realize that they were being used by these people within the intelligence community, not only to get information, but also to give information. It just goes right up the ladder. We've got people today who are successful columnists, and they're successful columnists because they always seem to have a little bit of insight into issues and into Governmental matters. Well they do because they get this from their sources within the CIA and within other Government agencies. They know that if they say anything that angers those sources, those sources will close themselves off to them. And then, pretty soon they won't be able to have anything to put in their columns, and pretty soon their columns will be dropped by the newspapers around the country. So it's a very self-serving thing. It's a self-preservation-type thing. And then you keep going until you get to what I think is probably the major downfall and the major problem within the media today, which is just sheer, common laziness. The Kennedy Assassination is a complex subject. It has many labyrinths that you can get lost into. And it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort. And most media people and most editors are simply not willing to devote the time and the effort that it would take to pick their way through this mine field and find out what's right and what's not right. JERRY POLICOFF: I would agree with that. And I would also add that I think they were embarrassed by their early coverage. It's very difficult to look at the work that the media did in the aftermath of the assassination, which, by the way, was something that, in that day, was very natural. They were spoon-fed the Oswald legend. They were spoon-fed the evidence. Everything was accepted uncritically and passed on to the American Public. In the years since, I think the media is very embarrassed to look back at the coverage that they afforded this issue back in 1963, and they are basically too embarrassed to repudiate it. GARY NULL: Jerry, let me ask you about a very important character in all this. And that is L. Fletcher Prouty. And that, I believe also, Jim, was the character that Donald Sutherland played in the movie, JFK: the insider who knew all about what was going on, and who explained it to Jim Garrison in the movie. JIM MARRS: Yeah. That's correct. I believe that primarily the Mr. X character in the movie, JFK was based on Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. GARY NULL: Okay. I'd like each of your interpretations of what Prouty has said and what he knows. At least you can tell our audience. JERRY POLICOFF: Well, Fletcher Prouty is certainly somebody who needs to be taken seriously. I believe he was the liaison officer between the Pentagon and the CIA. He was certainly in a position to know a great deal about the inner workings of the intelligence community during the 1950s and `60s. He has reported on the breakdown of security. I'm not an expert on this, but I believe that security was passed on to military intelligence that day in Dallas. Am I right, Jim? JIM MARRS: Well, the Fourth Army Intelligence normally had agents who would join in and, on that particular occasion, they were told to stand down, and not to come to Dallas and not to participate in the security. And this is probably very significant because one of the things that Colonel Prouty has said -- and the more I look at it, the more I think he's exactly right -- that the key to a successful coup is not necessarily finding competent hit-men. I mean, anybody with a lot of money can go find a competent hit-man. The key is in withdrawing or reducing the normal security. And it seems obvious that that's what happened in Dallas that day. GARY NULL: Alright. Jim, go on a little further with Prouty. What else does he know? JIM MARRS: Well, as Jerry pointed out, he was the Deputy Director of Special Operations, and as such, he was a liaison between the CIA and the military. In other words, if the CIA was mounting some sort of operation and they needed support -- if they needed trucks, or if they needed an airplane, or if they needed air transport, or if they needed weaponry or something like that, they would go to the military and say: "This is what we need." And Prouty was the focal point officer who would do this. Now here's what was unique about his position. Since he was military, and not CIA, he was never required to sign the secrecy oath that all people who work for the CIA have to sign. And the secrecy oath -- the bottom line of it is that: If I reveal anything that I learn while working for the CIA, you can suspend my civil liberties, convict me in a court of law, and put me away for ever and ever. This is the basis of why so many people within the CIA cannot and will not talk and tell about what they know. But Prouty never signed that because he was a military man, and as such, he has been free to talk. And talk he has. All the way back to the publication of his book, THE SECRET TEAM, he has been saying that there is a power group -- a clique, if you will -- of people within the United States Government who operate this Government for their own purposes. I think that the Iran-Contra [operation] has proved this to be absolutely true, right on up `til today. (to be continued) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking. John DiNardo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ If we seriously listen to this "God within us" ["conscience", if you will], we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, the path of more effort rather than less. .... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold back from this work. .... Like every one of our ancestors before us, we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness. M. Scott Peck THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~