The identity of "Isaacs"
Peter R. Whitmey
the possible identity of "Isaacs", a name overheard by the late Richard
Giesbrecht in Winnipeg, Manitoba on Feb. 13, 1964. Several books,
beginning with COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA as well as THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO
MUCH, have erroneously concluded that "Isaacs" was most likely the late
Prof. Harold R. Isaacs of MIT. First of all, Prof. Isaacs, according to
his widow, was teaching at International House in Tokyo, Japan during the
1963-64 school year. As for the allegation made by a right-wing reporter
(Paul Allen) claiming that Prof. Isaacs was linked to Marilyn Murrett
(whom Allen did not apparently know was Oswald's cousin), there was
absolutely no foundation for this statement, which I discuss in much
detail in my first of three articles on the Winnipeg Airport Incident
("The Man Who Heard Too Much" written in 1990 for TTD, which is now
available along with my two follow-up articles at Ken Rahn's site; do a
search using the title at google.com).
It is very likely that "Isaacs" was Charles R. Isaacs, an American Airline
employee, whom I was able to locate through his son in 1992.
Unfortunately, he was suffering from Alzheimer's and was no longer
coherent enough to answer my letter. The FBI in Dallas should have
reinterviewed him and his second wife, Meredee (whom I have interviewed),
but instead requested that the NY office reinterview Martin Isaacs, the
social worker. I discuss this aspect of the investigation in my third
article "THE WINNIPEG AIRPORT INCIDENT REVISITED" which is available at
both Ken and John McAdams' site.
BTW, I let Dick Russell know about my research and sent him the relevant
FBI documents, and he wrote back that he would have never mentioned Prof.
Harold isaacs in his book, had he been aware of the material that I
forwarded to him. He had not read my article in TTD either.
I should also add that the Garrison investigation came to the erroneous
conclusion that CD 1080 (which was about Prof. Harold R. Isaacs) might be
about a fellow with the same name (although his middle name was different
but started with "R.) who lived near Houston, and who had earlier lived in
Dallas. He also had a cousin named Chuck, who lived near Dallas (but who
never worked for A.A.). This man was mentioned by Bill Turner in his
Ramparts article of Jan. 1968 and later Boxley made reference to
interviewing Harold in a 1975 National Tattler article. Mary Ferrell also
contributed to the suspicion that CD 1080 was in reference to the Harold
Isaacs from Texas (in a memo to Garrison). I was able to contact Harold
Isaacs near Houston and, of course, he was still mystified by the
experience (I also talked to his cousin, Chuck).
If anyone corresponds with Greg Parker, please let him know about this
posting.
- Peter R. Whitmey
Magic Bullet
being Charles.
It is something we will probably have to agree to disagree on. I still
think it was Prof Harold Isaacs - *if* - as I said in the post you refer
to - the choice is only between the two.
As for his wife's recollections of is whereabouts in the 63/64 school
year... I think I would prefer to go by actual records, rather than rely
on her memory. If she has remembered correctly, then it still does not
mean he could not have travelled to US/Canada during the time period in
question - though I agree it would make it a little more difficult to make
a case that he's the right guy.
You name two books in which Prof Isaacs is mentioned. There is
another..."Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological
Warfare, 1945-1960" by Christopher Simpson.
An intriguingly similar name and subject matter to the book on
brainwashing written by another on the MIT gravy-train of cold-war efforts
- Edgar Schein ("Coersive Persuasion").
International House was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, among
others. It was built in 1955 - the same year two colleges backed by US
special interests opened up in Swizerland - L'Abri and the Albert
Schweizer College. L'Abri was founded by a close associate of Carl
McIntire of ACCC fame (Francis Schaeffer)... the ASC by an association of
"liberal" and "free thinking" churches headed by the Unitarian Church.
Interestingly, Schaeffer made it his goal to take in kids "poisoned" by
"liberalism" and by writers such as Hegel... a philosopher in turn, of
some interest to Lee...
IH sounds like the very type of learning establishment which Lee may have
been drawn too. Wonder if that is where Ms Murret taught when she was
living there?
http://www.i-house.or.jp/ihj_e/intro_e/index.html
greg
"Peter R. Whitmey" <prwh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:945b9736.02042...@posting.google.com...
Peter R. Whitmey
>>One thing I have discovered in the course of my research related to the
JFK assassination (since 1986) is that you can't simply come to
conclusions based on hunches, suspicions, and the unfounded remarks of
other researchers and/or writers. I happened to become intrigued by the
reference to Richard Giesbrecht in COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA (especially
since I am Canadian) and eventually realized, after receiving various FBI
documents (many of which had been classified to protect Prof. Isaacs'
reputation), that the co-authors of COUP.. didn't know what the hell they
were talking about (they also made the ridiculous suggestion as to the
identitied of the three tramps). I have been providing Joan Mellen some
assistance in this area, so hopefully my analysis will be clarified in her
forthcoming book on Jim Garrison.
The accusation levelled at Prof. Isaacs was based on the remarks of an
extreme anti-communist journalist named Paul Allen, who also was convinced
that Prof. Isaacs was "the mastermind" behind a communist plot to
overthrow the U.S. government in 1964, and listed several members of LBJ's
cabinet as being accomplices. He also claimed that a speech made by RFK
in Toronto in 1964 had been written by a communist.
This man undoubtedly also believed that JFK was a communist too.
I would recommend that you read my article "The Man Who Heard Too Much" at
Ken Rahn's site (with added comments by me in italics throughout), and
maybe that will convince you that "Isaacs" could not possibly have been
the distinguished writer and professor, who happened to teach at MIT for
many years. BTW, his wife spent 1963-64 in Japan with her husband, and
remembered that they arrived back in Boston on their granddaughter's
birthday in June, 1964. She was a very well-educated woman herself and
political active in her younger days too. She had never heard of Marilyn
Murret, whom Paul Allen had attempted to link to Prof. Isaacs in a column
he wrote about three women whom he claimed were communist defectors, one
of which was Marilyn (of course, she never defected). I don't know how he
came to learn about them, but it was clear (as pointed out in the FBI
documents) that he did not know that Marilyn was Oswald's cousin. He did
know that she was a teacher, who had travelled around the world for
several years, teaching along the way, to pay for her trip. I did try
speaking to Marilyn in the early 1990s after writing to her in New Olreans
(she must have inherited her parents' house, as it was the same address as
given for Dutch Murret and his wife in the Warren volumes). When I phoned
she was on her way to a Mardi Gras festivity and said she had no time to
talk to me, and really didn't want to discuss her cousin, LHO, anyway.
It seems quite clear she hardly knew him.
What is most important to emphasize (as I did in "THE WINNIPEG AIRPORT
INCIDENT REVISITED") is the fact that the FBI office in Minneapolis, who
headed the investigation into Giesbrecht's allegations, requested that the
Dallas FBI office check their records to see if the name "Isaacs" had come
up in their investigation (they sent an airtel around March 6, 1964 after
Giesbrecht had been interviewed in Winnipeg). Since Charles R. Isaacs and
his wife had been interviewed at the request of the Dallas office by the
San Francisco office, WHY DIDN'T THEY LET THE MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE KNOW
ABOUT CHARLES ISAACS AND RE-INTERVIEW HIM? Instead, they sent an airtel
to the NY office to have Martin Isaacs re-interviewed. I sent a copy of
my article from TFD to the Dallas FBI office a few years ago, and got a
reply, but no answers. They suggested I contact the JFK Archives in
Maryland (there is no document there from Dallas to Minneapolis about
"Isaacs").
BTW, Charles Isaacs did find out through his daughter that his name was
mentioned in a lengthy NATIONAL ENQUIRER article about Giesbrecht
(published in Jan. 1968), and that Garrison was looking for him (he had
been transferred by A.A. in the fall of 1963). I learned this from
Isaacs' ex-wife (the daughter died some years ago). Did Mr. Isaacs
contact Garrison's office? Of course not. Was he somehow involved in the
assassinaton of JFK, or did he at least know who was involved? I guess
we'll never know, but I think he is obviously much more of a suspicious
character than the late Prof. Harold R. Isaacs.
- Peter
Peter R. Whitmey
>> The right-wing reporter whom I referred to as "Paul Allen" in fact was
Paul Scott; his partner at the Virginia newspaper was Robert Allen. In a
final report on the allegations made by Scott, the FBI at HQ stated the
following on May 26, 1964 in an airtel to SAC, WFO from the Director, FBI:
"Boston had been requested to submit a memorandum concerning
indentifying information and background data about Isaacs. This stemmed
from a newspaper article written by a Paul Scott wherein he alleged that
Marilyn Murret had been a defector to Russia and was associated with the
Oswald case. Murret is a cousin of Lee Harvey Oswald although apparently
Scott did not know this when he wrote the newspaper article. In writing
about Murret, Scott also indicated that she was associated with Isaacs.
Boston has submitted with referenced airtel a letterhead memorandum
containing background on Isaacs. We will furnish this to the Commission
and advise the Commission that we are conducting no further inquiry
regarding this phase unless specifically requested to do so. Aside from
her relationship to Oswald, Murret had almost no association with him.
When interviewed she advised she never visited the Soviet Union. There is
no indication Isaacs has been involved in any subversive activities for at
least the last 20 years. Therefore, there is no point in carrying this
any further unless specifically requested to do so by the Commission."
BTW, although I keep the documents about the investigation of Prof. Isaacs
with my Winnipeg Airport Incident material in one binder, there is no
evidence that the FBI in the Washington DC field office knew about the
allegations of Richard Giesbrecht of Winnipeg. However, since HQ
certainly knew about Mr. Giesbrecht, they might have wondered if "Isaacs"
being referred to in Winnipeg was Prof. Isaacs, although they didn't seem
to take Giesbrecht seriously and suspected he had made the story up.
Given that Paul Scott didn't mention Winnipeg in his report on Marilyn
Murret, nor when interviewed by the FBI, presumably he was not aware of
the Winnipeg story, even though it had been published in the Winnipeg Free
Press on May 2, 1964 (his article was published in April).
"Magic Bullet" might have been influenced in his conclusions from reading
Richard Bartholomew's article on the mysterious Rambler seen in front of
the TSBD. Is is available on the net and he makes reference to my
conclusions in the body of the article and cites my third article about
Giesbrecht in his footnotes. Despite the information I provided,
Bartholomew still was convinced that "Isaacs" was much more likely a
reference to Prof. Harold Isaacs than Charles R. Isaacs of American
Airlines. I personally feel this ongoing suspicion of the late Harold R.
Isaacs of MIT is totally without foundation, but often researchers seem to
cling to a theory despite a lack of evidence.
- Peter R. Whitmey
Magic Bullet
> JFK assassination (since 1986) is that you can't simply come to
> conclusions based on hunches, suspicions, and the unfounded remarks of
> other researchers and/or writers.
Peter, your point is...what? You may not have noticed... but few here
provide the amount of citations I do. I don't refer people to conspiracy
or lone nut articles.
Which is what you are doing here... no matter how well your article is
cited... it is your own conclusions which are meant to have the greater
influence on the reader.
I happened to become intrigued by the
> reference to Richard Giesbrecht in COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA (especially
> since I am Canadian) and eventually realized, after receiving various FBI
> documents (many of which had been classified to protect Prof. Isaacs'
> reputation), that the co-authors of COUP.. didn't know what the hell they
> were talking about
So? I haven't read their book.
(they also made the ridiculous suggestion as to the
> identitied of the three tramps). I have been providing Joan Mellen some
> assistance in this area, so hopefully my analysis will be clarified in her
> forthcoming book on Jim Garrison.
I understand she's a fine writer. If anyone can clarify your analysis, I'm
sure she can.
> The accusation levelled at Prof. Isaacs
What accusation?
was based on the remarks of an
> extreme anti-communist journalist named Paul Allen, who also was convinced
> that Prof. Isaacs was "the mastermind" behind a communist plot to
> overthrow the U.S. government in 1964, and listed several members of LBJ's
> cabinet as being accomplices. He also claimed that a speech made by RFK
> in Toronto in 1964 had been written by a communist.
> This man undoubtedly also believed that JFK was a communist too.
He wasn't alone in that thought. What relevancy does it have anyway?
> I would recommend that you read my article "The Man Who Heard Too Much" at
> Ken Rahn's site (with added comments by me in italics throughout), and
> maybe that will convince you that "Isaacs"
I have read it. Sorry. It didn't convince me. But having said that, I will
remind you, I had already conceded you may be right...my opinion on who it
was is just that - an opinion.
could not possibly have been
> the distinguished writer and professor, who happened to teach at MIT for
> many years. BTW, his wife spent 1963-64 in Japan with her husband, and
> remembered that they arrived back in Boston on their granddaughter's
> birthday in June, 1964.
So what have you done to try and verify this?
> She was a very well-educated woman herself
And therefiore isn't capable of misremembering or lying?
and
> political active in her younger days too. She had never heard of Marilyn
> Murret, whom Paul Allen had attempted to link to Prof. Isaacs in a column
> he wrote about three women whom he claimed were communist defectors, one
> of which was Marilyn (of course, she never defected). I don't know how he
> came to learn about them, but it was clear (as pointed out in the FBI
> documents) that he did not know that Marilyn was Oswald's cousin.
So obviously his article was not written for any "sinister" purpose
relating to LHO. If he truly was unaware of the relationship - I think it
adds credibility to the link he made between her and Isaacs... even if he
got certain other facts wrong.
He did
> know that she was a teacher, who had travelled around the world for
> several years, teaching along the way, to pay for her trip.
And as I have pointed out, her story of having been a teacher in Australia
has certain problems - problems which - going by some of the questions put
to her by the WC - they were seemingly aware of.
I did try
> speaking to Marilyn in the early 1990s after writing to her in New Olreans
> (she must have inherited her parents' house, as it was the same address as
> given for Dutch Murret and his wife in the Warren volumes). When I phoned
> she was on her way to a Mardi Gras festivity and said she had no time to
> talk to me, and really didn't want to discuss her cousin, LHO, anyway.
> It seems quite clear she hardly knew him.
Does it matter how well she knew him personally, or how often they saw
each other? She certainly seems to have been well informed of his
activities for someone on the other side of the world at the time.
> What is most important to emphasize (as I did in "THE WINNIPEG AIRPORT
> INCIDENT REVISITED") is the fact that the FBI office in Minneapolis, who
> headed the investigation into Giesbrecht's allegations, requested that the
> Dallas FBI office check their records to see if the name "Isaacs" had come
> up in their investigation (they sent an airtel around March 6, 1964 after
> Giesbrecht had been interviewed in Winnipeg). Since Charles R. Isaacs and
> his wife had been interviewed at the request of the Dallas office by the
> San Francisco office, WHY DIDN'T THEY LET THE MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE KNOW
> ABOUT CHARLES ISAACS AND RE-INTERVIEW HIM? Instead, they sent an airtel
> to the NY office to have Martin Isaacs re-interviewed. I sent a copy of
> my article from TFD to the Dallas FBI office a few years ago, and got a
> reply, but no answers. They suggested I contact the JFK Archives in
> Maryland (there is no document there from Dallas to Minneapolis about
> "Isaacs").
One of any number of odd decisions in their investigation, no doubt.
> BTW, Charles Isaacs did find out through his daughter that his name was
> mentioned in a lengthy NATIONAL ENQUIRER article about Giesbrecht
> (published in Jan. 1968), and that Garrison was looking for him (he had
> been transferred by A.A. in the fall of 1963). I learned this from
> Isaacs' ex-wife (the daughter died some years ago). Did Mr. Isaacs
> contact Garrison's office? Of course not. Was he somehow involved in the
> assassinaton of JFK, or did he at least know who was involved? I guess
> we'll never know, but I think he is obviously much more of a suspicious
> character than the late Prof. Harold R. Isaacs.
Which is the crux of that matter - it is YOUR opinion it was Charles based
on your reading of the evidence. I have come to a different conclusion
based on the evidence I have seen. Such differences of opinion happen all
the time and are not something either of should get worked up about,
unless some dishonesty or nefarious purpose has been gleaned from the
dissenting opinion.
I certainly have no concerns about you honesty or integrity... but nor do
I particularly care if you actually do have those concerns about me...
That aside, what you have singled out here was but one small part of a
post with far greater scope. I am much more interested in establishing
whether there were in fact any links between Prof Isaacs and MM than I am
in the identity of the "Isaacs" of Winnipeg Airport fame. If it turned out
to have been Charles, it does nothing to change the overall
issues/concerns and other (possible) connections raised and shown in the
post from which you have extracted this item. In short, the Winnipeg
Airport Incident is a side issue to me...
greg
Magic Bullet
Peter, quite correct. I may have been. I may also have been influenced by
PCP when I wrote the post from which you have extracted on small item in
order to try and get your own (different) opinion across. Neither scenario
is true. The only article I've read on it is yours, and the only drug in
my system when I wrote the post was caffeine.
Is is available on the net and he makes reference to my
> conclusions in the body of the article and cites my third article about
> Giesbrecht in his footnotes. Despite the information I provided,
> Bartholomew still was convinced that "Isaacs" was much more likely a
> reference to Prof. Harold Isaacs than Charles R. Isaacs of American
> Airlines.
You seem disappointed, and perhaps, even a tad bitter that anyone would
dare disagree with you. That's not a very realistic attitude, if true.
I personally feel this ongoing suspicion of the late Harold R.
> Isaacs of MIT is totally without foundation, but often researchers seem to
> cling to a theory despite a lack of evidence.
Is that a fatuous statement, or a deliberately provactive one? Or perhaps
it shows signs of what I like to think of as Reitzeschausen Syndrome which
expresses itself in an ongoing conflation of the meanings of the words
"proof" and "evidence"?
greg
Peter R. Whitmey
>>Back when "Magic Bullet" made his comment about "Isaacs" at
jfkresearch.com, he wondered how Prof. Isaacs and Marilyn Murret had been
linked in the first place. I tried to point out that it was through the
rantings of a McCarthyite journalist named Paul Scott. Even Dick Russell
agreed in his written reply to me that he would have dropped his reference
to Prof. Harold Isaacs in connection with both Winnipeg and Marilyn Murret
(in his book THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, published several years after my
similarly titled article "THE MAN WHO HEARD TOO MUCH"), had he read my
article and/or seen the FBI documents I sent him.
I am not bitter at "Magic Bullet" for his point of view, but I am
disappointed that when confronted with some important facts, he continues
to feel it is okay to defame a distinguished writer and educator, whose
profile in the NYT was quite impressive after he died around 1985. I
spoke to his wife on several occasions and she kindly wrote back to me
three times, in response to my letters, and she clearly was quite hurt to
learn what had been stated in COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA. I'm sure she would
be equally hurt to be if she knew someone on the Internet thought she
might be a liar. She would undoubtedly have been equally upset about the
reference in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, as well as the article on the
mysterious Rambler station wagon, and postings such as "Magic Bullet's"
(since he insists on calling himself by an assassination-related nickname,
that's what I will call him).
It's too bad that Prof. Isaacs wasn't aware of COUP D'EAT.. when alive,
as I imagine he would have hired a lawyer and sued the hell out of the
authors for slander. Readers might recall the slanderous remarks of
Robert Morrow towards a Pakistani farmer who was on the podium with RFK
just before RFK was killed, with a camera around his neck. Morrow claimed
it concealed a hidden camera (in his book THE SENATOR MUST DIE) devised by
the CIA, and that this man actually fired the killing shot behind RFK's
right ear. Well, as it turned out, film footage showed the young
Pakistani-American freelance writer taking the film out of his camera,
after jumping off the front of the podium (RFK left from the rear into the
kitchen area). A few years ago the Pakistani-American farmer (who lives
in California) sued both Morrow and the tabloid "The Globe", which ran a
"review" of the book with a photo of the accused killer standing next to
RFK (with an arrow over his head). Morrow refused to come to California
and claimed that he had no money (he has since died), and his publisher
went into receivership, so the suit ended up being against the tabloid.
The verdict was in favour of the plaintiff, which was appealed
unsuccessfully to both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts. The fine
was $1.6 million dollars and the remaining copies of THE SENATOR MUST DIE!
were turned over to the plaintiff and burned on his property (he was
interviewed on 60 Minutes prior to the final appeal and indicated what he
planned to do with the books).
I believe we have to be careful when accusing people, living or dead, of
being involved in a plot to kill President Kennedy (or anyone else for
that matter), and sometimes must be prepared to back up our statements in
a court of law. One of the authors of COUP D'EAT (Weberman) became
"famous" for going through Bob Dylan's garbage when Bob, his wife Sara and
children were living in New York City, trying to live as normal a life as
possible. What he wrote about Prof. Harold Isaacs was also garbage, and
consistent with his journalistic approach. As you can tell, what "Magic
Bullet" had to say on this matter is simply more of the same, in my humble
opinion. - Peter
Magic Bullet
Peter, why is it okay for you to accuse Scott of lying?
> I am not bitter at "Magic Bullet" for his point of view, but I am
> disappointed that when confronted with some important facts,
What "facts" would they be?
he continues
> to feel it is okay to defame a distinguished writer and educator, whose
> profile in the NYT was quite impressive after he died around 1985.
No one has been defamed. I was looking to see what evidence there might be for
the Prof Isaacs and MM link - apart from the FBI documents. I also pointed out
that his work at MIT was sponsored by the CIA, and that MIT had two other
faculty members of interest (to me) - one having studied Korean POW's and
written a book on his findings... and the other - a former Director of Army
research and development and prior to that, an employer of a house-guest of
Jack Ruby who was doing research on "degenerative diseases" which Ruby helped
find finance for.
I
> spoke to his wife on several occasions and she kindly wrote back to me
> three times, in response to my letters, and she clearly was quite hurt to
> learn what had been stated in COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA.
I have already pointed out to you I have not read the book - and therefore I
have absolutely no idea what they wrote. I do know this - it has NOTHING to do
with me - or what I wrote - yet you persist in bringing it up.
I'm sure she would
> be equally hurt to be if she knew someone on the Internet thought she
> might be a liar.
Do you always twist things like this? is this an example of how you come to
your conclusions. I never said I thought she was a liar. You are making that
up.
You appear however, to have the kind of mindset which won't allow you to
believe someone of her background and education is capable of lying or
misrembering. All I did was ask if that was the case... and I ask again.... IS
that what you believe?
If anyone is being slandered, it is me. You have no idea what my "thought" on
her is, and insinuating that I have accused her of lying is in itself a damn
lie.
She would undoubtedly have been equally upset about the
> reference in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, as well as the article on the
> mysterious Rambler station wagon, and postings such as "Magic Bullet's"
> (since he insists on calling himself by an assassination-related nickname,
> that's what I will call him).
Call me anything you want.
> It's too bad that Prof. Isaacs wasn't aware of COUP D'EAT.. when alive,
> as I imagine he would have hired a lawyer and sued the hell out of the
> authors for slander.
So what's your point? That book has nothing to do with me, and I am growing
weary of having to point that out.
Readers might recall the slanderous remarks of
> Robert Morrow towards a Pakistani farmer who was on the podium with RFK
> just before RFK was killed, with a camera around his neck. Morrow claimed
> it concealed a hidden camera (in his book THE SENATOR MUST DIE) devised by
> the CIA, and that this man actually fired the killing shot behind RFK's
> right ear. Well, as it turned out, film footage showed the young
> Pakistani-American freelance writer taking the film out of his camera,
> after jumping off the front of the podium (RFK left from the rear into the
> kitchen area). A few years ago the Pakistani-American farmer (who lives
> in California) sued both Morrow and the tabloid "The Globe", which ran a
> "review" of the book with a photo of the accused killer standing next to
> RFK (with an arrow over his head). Morrow refused to come to California
> and claimed that he had no money (he has since died), and his publisher
> went into receivership, so the suit ended up being against the tabloid.
> The verdict was in favour of the plaintiff, which was appealed
> unsuccessfully to both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts. The fine
> was $1.6 million dollars and the remaining copies of THE SENATOR MUST DIE!
> were turned over to the plaintiff and burned on his property (he was
> interviewed on 60 Minutes prior to the final appeal and indicated what he
> planned to do with the books).
Yada yada yada with yet another effort to somehow equate me and my post with
authors and books I've never read.
> I believe we have to be careful when accusing people, living or dead, of
> being involved in a plot to kill President Kennedy (or anyone else for
> that matter),
Please be good enough to show where I have accused Issacs of anything save
that which is provable - that he was on the payroll of the CIA.
and sometimes must be prepared to back up our statements in
> a court of law.
No. I'll settle for you backing up YOUR statements right here. Quote me making
any allegations against Isaacs being involved in the assassination - or have
the decency to withdraw and apologise.
One of the authors of COUP D'EAT (Weberman) became
> "famous" for going through Bob Dylan's garbage when Bob, his wife Sara and
> children were living in New York City, trying to live as normal a life as
> possible. What he wrote about Prof. Harold Isaacs was also garbage, and
> consistent with his journalistic approach. As you can tell, what "Magic
> Bullet" had to say on this matter is simply more of the same, in my humble
> opinion. - Peter
Then you should have no problem showing that.
greg
David Sharpness
him without knowing that in earlier post, a quote from the Torbit
Document, which I requote below, but first a web site where Isaacs
interviews Trotsky, and last, a few comments!
Web site with interview:
Trotsky
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1602/trottext/china/ch42.htm
quote from Torbit:
Gary Underhill, a CIA agent with Walter Kostow and Harold R. Isaacs at the
Center for International Studies at MIT, told friends in early 1964 in New
York that a group within the U.S. Intelligence agencies had planned and
brought about the death of John Kennedy and that he was going to expose
them. A few days later he was found dead in his apartment in Washington,
D.C a bullet in his head behind his left ear - but Underhill was right
handed.
Harold R. Isaacs, ex-Newsweek Magazine editor, was the subject of a
suppressed Warren Commission document.
David Ferrie, Maurice Brooks Gatlin, Guy Bannister and Mike McLaney of
New Orleans, Robert Ray McKeown of Houston, Jack Ruby of Dallas and L.J.
McWillie of Las Vegas began a partnership in 1953 with Carlos Prio
Socarras, Cuba's President from 1948 to 1952, before Batista. Prio and his
group were working well with Batista in operating all of the Cuban
gambling houses until about 1957 when Batista began to shake Prio's group
down for more than they felt was reasonable.90
end quote
Well, I don't know know...start a thread..back to Underhill! But, but
look at all those names... Prio goes on to help Castro, then after Castro
takes over, works to overthrow him. Prio was pals with that woman whose
house Castro stayed at in Mexico. Prio funneled funds to Castro through
her This to say they all know one another, and many of them are Reds!
It's a mix of Reds and Gangsters!
I got to look at the Orizco art show, and learn he was pals with the other
Mexican muralist who tried to shoot Trotsky, and Orizco while in New York
joined a salon called the Delphic Circle, which looks to be a precurser of
the World Federalists. This just to hoot my disdain for World
Dominionists of all creeds!
Walter Kostow seems familiar too but I cant recall for what reason.
Who is the Korean vet that runs Castro's guerrilla's training...or is that
after Castro takes over and it's the aniti Castro guerillas...?
Whole thing's a flim flam.
Basically, it's a torture someone into being a torturer scheme. There's
an inherent reluctance in everyone to murder, so where do, or how do, the
nefarious find their assassins? In old Shanghai Big Eared Tu could buy
them for a few hundred Chinese dollars, crushing poverty and the loss of
hope made them his. The Old Man of the Mountain did the same trick.
A single assassin, or an army of them, it works the same way.
The Japanese would send green farm kid recruits into the China Incident
which quickly toughened them, and broke any inhibitions they had to
brutalizing the enemy.
Their harsh bootcamp training and constant propaganda in grade schools had
already crazed them. Those three things, propaganda in school, hazing in
military training, and brutalizing the enemy in combat, are the hall marks
of this pattern of torturing someone into torturing someone else.
It's cruel, it's evil, it's Lenin and Stalin.
It's right out of a B movie, where the villain puts the hero's girl on the
railroad tracks, and torments the hero into doing his bidding.
David
Rainbow, CA