Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T

David Phillips was Oswald's handler. If Phillips sat on the sidelines during the assassination then Oswald would have stayed in NOLA and not ventured to Dallas.

Phillips had to have had hand in the planning of the assassination to place Oswald in the position to become the patsy.

You use that word clueless rather loosely, you need to look at yourself.

[Paul Trejo]

7 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T

David Phillips was Oswald's handler. If Phillips sat on the sidelines during the assassination then Oswald would have stayed in NOLA and not ventured to Dallas.

Phillips had to have had hand in the planning of the assassination to place Oswald in the position to become the patsy.

You use that word clueless rather loosely, you need to look at yourself.

George,

First, there is no need for personal insult here.  If you don't like my answers, then stop asking me questions.  That simple.

Secondly, David Atlee Phillips was only ONE of Oswald's handlers.  Guy Banister was a different handler, with different connections and a different purpose.  This was shown conclusively by Dr. Jeff Caufield (2015).

There are many other interpretations of the behavior of Oswald than simply blaming David Atlee Phillips.  For Caufield, General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK assassination, and had a personal vendetta against Lee Harvey Oswald because of the April 10, 1963 attempted assassination of Walker.

Caufield links Guy Banister with General Walker in 1963.  There is the explanation for Oswald's return to Dallas -- without the need to pull DAP into the argument.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 20, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T

I agree that Banister handled Oswald for a different purpose.

Banister wanted Oswald to help him identify the communists in NOLA while Phillips wanted Oswald to help him kill the president.

 

 

 

 

[David Andrews]

On 5/20/2017 at 3:39 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I know you were addressing Paul T., but I would like to respond. To me you have not proved that there was enmity between the JCS and CIA. I'm not really arguing against your suggestion that the assassination was military. JFK was afraid of just that. But Lemnitzer or Dulles passing the buck during an official inquiry isn't proof. I generally think Andrews has it right, and it's not so different than your theory, except for the fact that he doesn't attempt to parse the differences between one group of powerful haters and another. The SILENCE that follows that moment, in which disparate groups coalesce in covering up or properly investigating the crime proves this point. If it wasn't a lone assassin, which I think nearly all of us agree on, a smaller group of conspirators, such as mafia, or rogue CIA, or ex-military, or JBS Minutemen, or Dallas oil and defense, could not have succeeded after the fact in keeping their secret and avoiding punishment. There was no civil or nuclear war that was prevented by wiser heads who decided in the public interest to 'convict' Oswald and move on. All myth to coverup the awful truth that the murder and coverup were acts of STATE, perpetrated by our self appointed ruling class to protect their own interests, which they call the 'national interest'. 

Re: JCS v. CIA - I wonder about the full meaning of Fletcher Prouty's remark to interviewer Len Osanic, which I have to paraphrase:

Prouty said that when he returned from his South Pole trip after the assassination, he found there was a new sense of mission and "Go" at the Pentagon, and he could tell that people knew that a coup had taken place.  He went on to another topic, but Osanic interrupted him to ask, "How many of the military at the Pentagon would you say knew there had been a coup?"  Prouty tried to blow it off, but Osanic insisted.  Finally, Prouty said, in a tone of disappointment and embarrassment, "They all knew, Len."

Osanic likes to tell this story on his BlackOp Radio show, and once by accident I heard this exchange in his Prouty interview tapes (I couldn't tell you where to find it), There's no place else in Prouty's recordings where that kind of emotion breaks through.  I think it surprised Prouty.  I think he was ashamed of what he saw that day. 

So what did it mean?  You have to remember Prouty's concept of a "secret team" at CIA infiltrating the military and the other intel services, plus corporations and the media.

Prouty is not the be-all and end-all in this type research, but I don't think he was a disinfo artist, and his perspective is valuable.

Edited May 24, 2017 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

22 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T

I agree that Banister handled Oswald for a different purpose.

Banister wanted Oswald to help him identify the communists in NOLA while Phillips wanted Oswald to help him kill the president.

George,

We sharply disagree.  Jim Garrison knew in 1968 that Guy Banister wanted Oswald to kill JFK.   I agree with Jim Garrison.

One only needs to read Jim Garrison's book, On the Trail of the Assassins (1988), to see the truth in this.

DAP was hoping that Oswald would help him kill Fidel Castro in Cuba.  That's what the Mexico City trip was all about.

One only needs to read DAP's unpublished bio-novel, The AMLASH Legacy (1988) to see the truth in this.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 22, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

25 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

George,

We sharply disagree.  Jim Garrison knew in 1968 that Guy Banister wanted Oswald to kill JFK.   I agree with Jim Garrison.

Paul, I would love to see something  that supports that narrative.

DAP was hoping that Oswald would help him kill Fidel Castro in Cuba.  That's what the Mexico City trip was all about.

Paul, I would think that DAP would have made sure that LHO knew that he would need a visa, how to get one, and the likelihood of having any success with the way that he went about it. Neglecting that detail is a pretty large oversight for a guy like DAP. If you have anything that demonstrates your narrative, I would like to see it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Replays in bold.

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I think he was ashamed of what he saw that day. 

So what did it mean?  You have to remember Prouty's concept of a "secret team" at CIA infiltrating the military and the other intel services, plus corporations and the media.

David,

Are you saying that (you believe) Prouty was ashamed that the CIA was able to infiltrate the military? Or that the CIA would infiltrate the military, etc.? (Or something else?)

 

[David Andrews]

Sandy,

Ashamed to have seen that so many people in (to clarify) his operations wing of the Pentagon knew there had been a coup, and either approved of it or were ready to run with it.  When you hear Prouty answer the question, he sounds really sorry to admit that "they all knew."

Look at Len Osanic's archived show descriptions on the Black Op Radio site and you might find this interview under the Prouty recordings.

Edited May 22, 2017 by David Andrews

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Sandy,

Ashamed to have seen that so many people in (to clarify) his operations wing of the Pentagon knew there had been a coup, and either approved of it or were ready to run with it.  When you hear Prouty answer the question, he sounds really sorry to admit that "they all knew."

Look at Len Osanic's archived show descriptions on the Black Op Radio site and you might find this interview under the Prouty recordings.

Oh! Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Yeah, I can see Prouty being affected that way.

I'll bet that there were a some who felt like Prouty, but kept it to themselves.

Anyway, thanks for posting about that.

 

 

[George Sawtelle]

The question ... who ordered the army to deploy troops to Wash DC the day of the assassination is one of the keys to solving the assassination. Because whoever ordered the troops to Wash DC to protect the coup had to be one of the plotters.

We know it could not have been the CIA simply because the army would not blindly follow the CIA. And it follows then that the CIA did not plan the assassination or coup because protection of the coup by the army (troops) is an integral part of any coup.

[Jeffrey Reilley]

6 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

The question ... who ordered the army to deploy troops to Wash DC the day of the assassination is one of the keys to solving the assassination. Because whoever ordered the troops to Wash DC to protect the coup had to be one of the plotters.

We know it could not have been the CIA simply because the army would not blindly follow the CIA. And it follows then that the CIA did not plan the assassination or coup because protection of the coup by the army (troops) is an integral part of any coup.

If it were a well organized coup, then I'd say the CIA(high elements of anyways) would have to be in on the planning. As well as many high ranking military officials. Thing went off with what, 3 total deaths "officially"? 

Attempting to overthrow a government is a serious task. Actually overthrowing the United States of America's government would take an all hands on deck approach. 

Nothing happened after. No mass protests, no riots with hundreds or thousands of deaths. Tip your hat, they succeeded. But tip your hat knowing it was not the work of a talented few. It took excellent teamwork

 

[George Sawtelle]

Jeffrey

Would you buy ex-CIA agent and CIA agent on loan as the organizers?

The plotters were helped tremendously by the arrest of Oswald within an hour to an hour and a half of the assassination. You can thank Phillips for that. The arrest was crucial since it gave the plotters time to get the cover-up mechanism in motion. Then the CIA and FBI did their cover up magic and the public was pacified. The troops were a contingency and it turned out they weren't needed.

Many people inside the government knew`Kennedy would be hit but they didn't know who was planning the hit. They had heard rumors. But they kept their mouth shut and waited. In that respect they were complicit and I think that is what upset Proutty. So in that aspect you're right it was`all hands on deck.

But I disagree when you write it was not a talented few. It was. Two people doing the planning with little or no help from other government agencies. I believe two other people were instrumental in the plot. That means only four people knew who planned and executed the assassination. Only four people, sworn to secrecy all these years, and all four are dead. That is the main reason the case`has been so difficult to crack.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[David Andrews]

On 5/22/2017 at 6:42 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh! Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Yeah, I can see Prouty being affected that way.

I'll bet that there were a some who felt like Prouty, but kept it to themselves.

Anyway, thanks for posting about that.

If you read The Secret Team, Prouty's main theme is that CIA has had its people in the military for decades, and the military has cooperated and given them ranks and postings appropriate to their operational purposes.  Among other affairs, it's how Air America came off in the Vietnam War and how Ed Lansdale rose to Air Force general.  I should have said this above.

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by David Andrews

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

The question ... who ordered the army to deploy troops to Wash DC the day of the assassination is one of the keys to solving the assassination.

George,

I wasn't aware of that troop deployment and I'd like to learn a little more about it. Can you think of any keywords I can google to find articles about it?

 

[George Sawtelle]

Sandy

In a scene of Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", Garrison (Kevin Costner) and Prouty (Donald Sutherland) are talking on a park bench in Washington DC. Prouty mentions the troop deployment to Garrison.

There maybe more information about the troop deployment in Prouty's book. I think the name of the book is "JFK assassination and Vietnam".