154 lines
7.4 KiB
Plaintext
154 lines
7.4 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 1 Num. 20
|
||
======================================
|
||
("Quid coniuratio est?")
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
RESOLVED: President Kennedy was killed as the result of a
|
||
conspiracy.
|
||
|
||
[Continuation of my transcription of a radio debate which took
|
||
place in the Fall of 1993 between Peter Dale Scott and Gerald
|
||
Posner. Today, Mr. Scott and Mr. Posner exchange questions for
|
||
the second time.]
|
||
|
||
|
||
MODERATOR: Mr. Scott, I have to caution you to try and use your
|
||
time better. But, you have one minute to ask Mr. Posner a
|
||
question.
|
||
|
||
PETER DALE SCOTT: Um... there was... When Oswald went into the
|
||
Soviet embassy in Mexico City, a tape was made of the
|
||
conversation. The CIA has lied and lied and lied and lied about
|
||
that tape. They said it was destroyed -- 2 weeks later, it
|
||
wasn't. Then they said it was destroyed right after the
|
||
assassination. But Mr. Slossen(?) of the Warren Commission
|
||
staff... And Mr. Posner *believes* in the Warren Commission; he'd
|
||
better believe Mr. Slossen when he says he heard the tape in
|
||
April of 1964. Members of [Winston] Scott's fam... and the chief
|
||
of station have said that [Winston] Scott and his wife listened
|
||
to the tape later. James Angleton came down to Mexico City in
|
||
1971 [and] took the tape away.
|
||
|
||
Now on that tape, the man identified himself as Lee Oswald. And
|
||
yet, as you say, he was not Oswald. How do you explain this?
|
||
|
||
MODERATOR: You have 2 minutes.
|
||
|
||
GERALD POSNER: Ah. But there's, there's a key difference. Uh,
|
||
Slossen says he hears a tape. And [Winston] Scott talks about it
|
||
later. But *nobody* says -- and this is absolutely key -- there's
|
||
not a transcript of it. The man identifies himself as Lee Oswald.
|
||
Years later, people say that.
|
||
|
||
Here's what's important: The CIA... and I'm not here to defend
|
||
the CIA. I must tell you. One of the things, one of the things
|
||
that Mr. Scott does and others who have criticized the book do,
|
||
they say, "Ah. Posner believes everything the CIA does. And since
|
||
he supports the Warren Commission's conclusion, he must agree
|
||
with that." Absolutely false. I take the CIA at issue for a whole
|
||
host of things, including the fact that they distorted evidence
|
||
and lied to the Warren Commission, and they were trying to kill
|
||
Fidel Castro and they didn't disclose it. And I take them to task
|
||
for all the bungling efforts that they do in Mexico City.
|
||
|
||
*But*. Very importantly (and you know this): They had a picture
|
||
of a man in Mexico City that was the wrong person. They thought
|
||
they had identified Lee Harvey Oswald. He was about 35 years old,
|
||
10 years older than Oswald, husky. He's much taller. It's not
|
||
Oswald. It led to *20 years* of speculation, almost, [that] there
|
||
was an "imposter Oswald" in Mexico City. That issue has been
|
||
dropped recently, now that the Soviets have come out and said,
|
||
"Guess what? The Oswald we met with in our embassy is the same
|
||
person who was, in fact, in Dallas and arrested in November of
|
||
'63." What it *says*, the very real possibility that I raised in
|
||
the book, which is that the CIA had not only identified the wrong
|
||
person as Oswald (because they didn't have a picture of him), but
|
||
they were also having surveillance *recording* the wrong Oswald,
|
||
the very same person who was inside the embassy. And that remains
|
||
a real possibility to this day.
|
||
|
||
*But*. I agree with you that one of the last great areas of real
|
||
interest here -- when new information has to come out -- is all
|
||
the shenanigans in Mexico City. And when I say "shenanigans,"
|
||
what I'm talking about is not a plot to kill the President --
|
||
that's key -- but the CIA's and the KGB's desperate efforts to
|
||
cover up their own sources of information: their informants, the
|
||
contacts inside the Mexican embassy, whether they had double-
|
||
agents inside the Cuban embassy, how they obtained video
|
||
surveillance at the time, and this overwhelming desire of the
|
||
intelligence agencies to *protect*... That type of history is
|
||
what exactly leads to the type of speculation you have in this
|
||
case, that you have sort of looked at and then said, "I see a
|
||
conspiracy of murder."
|
||
|
||
MODERATOR: Mr. Posner, you have one minute to ask a question.
|
||
|
||
POSNER: O.K. And in my minute I'm just gonna take 30 seconds, the
|
||
first 30, to say, Mr. Scott, that he didn't make a conclusion on
|
||
the other assassinations. But in his *own book* he says, on page
|
||
97, "Behind the deep politics of the Kennedy assassination lie
|
||
those of the [Huey] Long assassination." And on page 307 he talks
|
||
about the comparisons between Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey
|
||
Oswald. So for somebody who hasn't made up his mind, he has some
|
||
very interesting statements in the book.
|
||
|
||
But Mr. Scott, what I really would wonder is (since I don't see
|
||
it discussed in this book and I know you have discussed it
|
||
before): Why do you feel, *if* Oswald shot at General Walker in
|
||
April of '63, (a) you believe the evidence that he shot at
|
||
Walker, and (b) why would he have shot at Walker? And the second
|
||
part of the question is, Do you believe the evidence that Oswald
|
||
shot a Dallas policeman, J.D. Tippit, *after* the assassination?
|
||
And if so, why do you believe he killed Tippit?
|
||
|
||
MODERATOR: Mr. Scott, 2 minutes.
|
||
|
||
SCOTT: ...General Walker, who... *Somebody* shot at General
|
||
Walker. Eyewitnesses said it was *2* people. And if it was 2
|
||
people, then Oswald -- if it was Oswald -- then Oswald was not a
|
||
"loner."
|
||
|
||
Whoever shot at General Walker, from about 15 feet away, did not
|
||
shoot to kill him. I think they shot to help make him more of a
|
||
martyr than he already was. The bullet in question, I will remind
|
||
you, it *changed jacket*. It may have been copper-jacketed in
|
||
November, but the bullet was originally identified, then, as
|
||
being steel-jacketed. And I do believe that the bullets were
|
||
changed, because I think it is not hard *at all* to find other
|
||
cases of the falsification of evidence in that and other matters.
|
||
|
||
Now the killing of Tippit: Um, again, I believe there's
|
||
falsification. The bullet thing is difficult to go into, but I
|
||
think they rather botched the planting of bullets at the scene.
|
||
Um, you believe the eyewitnesses like Helen Markum(?) and Warren
|
||
Reynolds. Let me just say, Warren Reynolds was asked if he could
|
||
recognize Oswald. He said that he was unable to do so. *And then
|
||
somebody shot him through the head*. And then the Warren
|
||
Commission had the gall to ask him again. And he said, "Oh yes! I
|
||
remember now. It was Lee Harvey Oswald."
|
||
|
||
Well if you're going to rely on witnesses that have been coerced
|
||
in that way, I think you're prepared to grasp at almost any straw
|
||
in really conceding that there was no case.
|
||
|
||
MODERATOR: You will now each have 6 minutes to close. Mr. Scott,
|
||
you have 6 minutes.
|
||
|
||
(to be continued)
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
|
||
address, send a message in the form "subscribe my-email@address"
|
||
to bigxc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the form
|
||
"cancel my-email@address." && Articles sent in are considered.
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
|
||
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
|
||
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
|
||
|
||
|