NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/8591

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 8.5 KB | 171 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!netsys!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: [e-mail] (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part 24, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Originator: [e-mail]
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:47:35 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 155

        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       [phone]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (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