Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robin Finn

Members
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

10,016 profile views

Robin Finn's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

  1. Rip Robertson -photographed exiting the Catalina flying boat during the Bayo-Pawley raid in June,1963.
  2. JFK: The Book of the Film contains not only the annotated film script, but also a selection of journalism pieces on the film. The reader can see such paragons of the First Amendment as The New York Times and the Washington Post attack a film, that never claimed to be a documentary, before its release with plenty of hand-wringing that Americans might be tempted to question the conclusions of the Warren Commission. Gerald Ford and David Belin in the Washington Post: "When will Hollywood produce a movie that tells the truth?" Tom Wicker in The New York Times: "You have to be paranoid indeed to believe that the Chief Justice and his colleagues deliberately framed Oswald for a crime he didn't commit." Newsweek: "JFK is not just an entertainment, it's a work of propaganda." Daniel Patrick Moynihan in The New York Times: "The Paranoid Style" in which he compares believers in a JFK assassination conspiracy with 18th century Americans who worried about the Illuminati and 19th century American Nativists.
  3. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/friend-secret-cia-agent-think-190000508.html? How does ridiculous stuff like this get published?
  4. This is from a 1990 letter from Peter Lemkin to Harold Weisberg discussing Plumlee. Does anyone know the identity of the "T.B." referred to as being in Dallas on 11/22/63? This person had occasion to meet LHO before Dallas events. Known to him also were the major middle level and some high level conspirators. He was in Dallas on 11/22/63 and was there to be a part of a 'black op' as he had elsewhere on so many occasions. He has related to me some of the persons and locations and assignments related to the events leading up to and the execution and escape of the crime. These are not the ravings of a madman! He has and has related significant NEW information. There is more he has not yet told me as he insists that the project be assured of completion before he will take the risk of bringing down the full weight of cover-up on his head a la Ferrie et.al. This person was, I do believe, the person Ferrie was waiting for in Houston. I still can not go into details on this as the information leads back to this person and this one person only. (As does the info that he was Ferrie's contact !!!!!.... so this is between you and I only!) His overall knowledge of the events of 11/22/63 are less than mine. What he knows is what he knows. When he hears how they fit into the events as generally accepted by researchers there is the delight of a child and the look of awakening fear. He is beginning to accept that his worst fears - that that team he saw was the 'hit' team and not the 'abort team , as he was told - are coming apparent. This person has described the movements of several of the persons operative in Dallas that day. He knows how and when and where they entered, left and hid within the city. Some he knew by name and some he just knows the faces of. Fletcher Prouty has commented in a letter to me that one of his 'new' claims is likely. Now, my job is to prove what can be proved of all this .... without being too noticed (at least at first) by the keepers of the secrets. One of his claims is that T.B. was in Dallas that day. I asked how he could be sure. For a long time he was evasive, but insisted he knew. Finally, he told me that when he was just a teenager he worked in a company in which his direct supervisor was T.B. and that he had seen him in the course of his movements in Dallas that day. He knows the locations of the safehouses. He knows where the assassins were supposed to go and when and why.
  5. Via the Wayback Machine, a defunct site with documents on Plumlee can be viewed at : http://web.archive.org/web/20120309064142/http://toshplumlee.info/ Reading these reveals that Plumlee claimed to have seen Roselli in Nicaragua in 1961 at a training camp for the Bay of Pigs, to have piloted a P-51 fighter in the Bay of Pigs invasion, to have participated in the Bayo-Pawley mission into Cuba, and to have flown Marita Lorenz from New York to Tampa in 1963 as part of a Castro assassination plot.
  6. Gerende was a pseudonym for Ramon Joseph Alvarez Durant. The LIEMPTY project encompassed three photo surveillance bases,LILYRIC, LICALLA,LIMITED, aimed at the Soviet diplomatic compound. The mystery man photograph was taken by LIMITED. CIA refused to turn over the production from LILYRIC to the HSCA for review. Gerende(Alvarez)'s direct CIA supervisor would have been Tom Keenan, but the photograph production would have been handled by Goodpasture. From her fitness report: "supervises work of three photo bases operating against Soviet Embassy;processes take;identifies Soviets and intelligence function"
  7. From Malcolm Blunt's archive-29 pages of information on Marchetti's involvement with the memo. Also contains part of his deposition in which he reveals Helms' interest in Garrison's case. Victor Marchetti
  8. this was an email exchange between Gary Buell and Joe Trento on the memo.(Gary Buell was at one time an active member of this forum) Gary Buell: I am currently reading your fascinating new book. My particular interest is the JFK assassination and the information you received from Angleton deserves careful consideration. I think that there was one serious omission in your book in that regard. That is the lack of any mention of the memo that Angleton showed you concerning Howard Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas on 11/22/63. Many researchers believe that was an Angleton disinformation ploy of some sort but whether the memo was genuine or not I do not see how the reader can be expected to evaluate Angleton's views on the assassination without considering this material. I believe you yourself once speculated that he may have been attempting to obscure his own role in sending Hunt to Dallas. And, if I am not mistaken did you not also once suggest that Hunt may have been sent to Dallas by a KGB mole? Did you ever discuss this memo or its contents again with Angleton before his death? Joe Trento: I left it out because Hunt's role had been so discussed. My view is that Hunt's presence was more an embarrassment then anything significant. That's how Angleton treated it. Lane made much more of this then I believe it deserved. Gary the real question is it was Angleton's disinformation or someone trying to force the CIA's hand by demonstrating employees had come to Dallas. The original manuscript did include the material but the publisher could not publish a 1,000 page book. Gary Buell: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not real clear on your answer. If it was Angleton's disinformation to what end? And was Hunt in Dallas or not and who sent him? If I recall your original article (which I did read quoted in Lane's book)you refer to sources at the HSCA admitting having this memo, which was later denied. The whole thing is confusing, particularly your coment about someone trying to force the CIA's hand. I mean Angleton was behind this in one way or another. I would be most interested in reading the section of your book on this that was cut for space, if you are agreeable. Joe Trento: For contractual reasons I cannot give you the cut material to read. But to clarify the Angleton matter: I was originally tipped off by an assassination committee employee. They contacted me because I had written about Angleton and had access to him. They showed me a copy of the memo about Hunt being in Dallas. I called Angleton and he said he was aware of the memo and may even have a copy. He didn't. But a close friend of his did - and that friend said Angleton had entrusted to him. I read that copy, they matched. Jim did this sort of thing in an effort to get sensitive documents out during the months after his firing in 1974. I suspect Jim felt the document and Hunt story would come out anyway so he orchestrated the leak through me and the committee. The committee denial came because the document was never in the official group of documents they received. Jim told me he thought Hunt's presence was meaningless. He first claimed the reason the committee had the memo was because someone wanted to demonstrate he and Helms were covering up. I am convinced that the memo as written while Angleton did his internal probe to see what the Agency had done or not done and they ran across this business with Hunt and realized they had a potential public relations problem if the information got out. I never was told or got the impression that it was anything very significant - just very interesting. Did Jim tell me the truth on this? The answer is yes and no. I think Lane used this and other events to keep himself as part of the story. The reality is that all of this sideshow stuff diverted folks from looking at what the Soviet's did with LHO in Russia. I suspect at the time of the leak that's what Angleton and friends did not want researchers or reporters looking at. Gary Buell: Thank you for your lengthy reply which answers some questions and raises others. So the HSCA did have the memo but could not confirm its authenticity because it was not officially turned over - that is interesting. To my knowledge this memo has never turned up in the archives of the committee or ever been acknowledged. I wonder if it still exists. Re-reading your original article you seem to have placed a great deal more importance on the memo at that time. You cite unamed CIA investigators who theorize that Oswald was working for US Intelligence and turned by the KGB. And that Hunt was in Dallas on the orders of a high-level CIA official who was in reality a KGB mole and who ordered Hunt to kill Oswald. Do you think Angleton sent Hunt to Dallas? If this were a movie then Angleton would turn out to be the mole but in real life I think that is far-fetched. What is your take on all this now? Was the memo authentic? Did Angleton send Hunt to Dallas and, if not, who did? If he was in Dallas at all. And what was his mission? Was Oswald a double- or triple agent? Joe Trento: Angleton thought very little of Hunt so I doubt that they ever had much to do with each other. I suspect that the CIA successfully cited national security considerations regarding some of the JFK/ Soviet stuff. We had a number of sources from the CIA office of Security who offered a variety of theories. As far as it not showing up in the committee records, I suspect an agreement was made between the CIA and the Chairman. I would have never heard except from my staff sources. One possibility is they wanted to do something with it in the hearings and the members were against it, I may have been used as a trial balloon. At the time my colleague and I wrote the piece I suspected everyone's motives. Considering what I know now of the other screw ups the CIA and FBI perpetuated in this case the memo reflected potential public relations problem. Gary Buell: Thanks for the reply. Obviously the CIA was able to cover-up this "public relations problem", thanks, as you said, to Blakey. Let me ask a few direct questions: 1. Do you think Hunt was in Dallas? If so, any idea who sent him and on what mission? Or are we left simply with speculation? The most fascinating speculation was that he was sent by the KGB mole. 2. Do you think there was a high-level mole in the CIA? If this is in the book, I apologize as I am still reading it. Can we rule out Angleton? Helms? You have been very gracious thus far and I realize that you cannot correspond endlessly with every reader. Joe Trento: I think Hunt must have been in Dallas - perhaps not even on CIA business. Probably coming back from Mexico. I think the idea that a mole ordered him to Dallas was far fetched. You would have to assume he was competent and could carry out what the mole wanted. I don't think Helms or Angleton were moles. But it is clear that there were at least mid-level moles. Finish the book. You might want to get my previous book (with Bill Corson and Susan Trento Widows.)
  9. The standard histories of Watergate portray McCord as a bungling technical surveillance technician,but he worked with CIA's Security Research Staff and is named in one document as being involved in an operation against the FPCC. As James DiEugenio noted at the time, there was no curiosity shown by the mainstream media about him upon his death.
  10. Those watching the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic(and probably other) compounds could alert an undercover vehicle nearby to follow targets of interest. I think it was probably staffed with Mexicans working for CIA) I have seen a document in one of the recent releases from 1964 that mentions the possibility of using a movie camera to film the Soviet residential area so that a lip reader could work on what the Soviets who were outside were talking about (all of this from the same station who could claimed they couldn't get dates and photographs correct)
  11. ARRB memo on their interview of Helms: February 7, 1996 To: Jeremy Gunn cc: David Marwell; Mary McAuliffe; CIA team From: Robert J. Skwirot Subject: Interview of Richard Helms. Today ARRB staff members Jeremy Gunn, Mary McAuliffe, and Robert Skwirot conducted an interview of Richard Helms at his residence. The former DCI was cordial and seemed willing to answer our questions. However, Mr. Helms, who faulted a memory faded by the years, was unable to offer any information which might help in our search for additional assassination records. The following summary of the hour long interview is, in the interest of brevity, presented topically and does not reflect the sequence of Mr. Gunn’s questions. Helms remembered where he was the day of the assassination and recounted the message sent to stations to be alert to any evidence of a conspiracy or of foreign intervention. But he could not recall the specifics of the investigation of the assassination. For example, when asked about the alleged conflict between the head of WH/3, who coordinated the investigation for the first two months, and Angleton of CI, who was then given control, Helms could not even remember the name of the head of WH/3 [Scelso (ps) ], let alone any alleged conflict. Regarding why the investigation was passed to Angleton and CI, Helms stated that it was standard operating procedure that such an investigation would be a Counterintelligence issue because Oswald had visited the Soviet Union. Helms was unaware of any Angleton contacts with Chief Justice Warren. He characterized Angleton as respectful of hierarchy, and certainly “not a freewheeler.” He asserted that a lot of things have been said about Angleton that are not true. Of issues related to Mexico City, Helms remembers very little. He does not recall whether he knew about Oswald before or after the assassination. He has no memory of the photos of the “mystery man” or of a recording of Oswald’s voice at the Soviet Embassy. When asked about what should have been reported concerning Oswald’s visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies, Helms stated that it would have been standard operating procedure to notify headquarters about both visits and added, “If that didn’t happen, I’m surprised.” On another Mexico City issue, Mr. Gunn reminded the former DCI that FBI files indicate that it was known at the time that Oswald met with V. V. Kostikov while in Mexico City; Helms claimed to have no recollection that any particular attention was paid to the fact that Kostikov was with the Thirteenth Department. When asked about the possibility that a tape of Oswald in Mexico city existed after the assassination, Helms responded, “I can shed no light on this whatsoever.” Mr. Gunn also asked Mr. Helms a number questions concerning Win Scott. Helms has no knowledge of a Win Scott diary. When told of Scott’s allegation that the Agency tracked an airplane from Mexico City to Dallas and then to Havana on the day of the assassination, Helms responded, “it seems to me that in his later days he became a bit strange.... Scott made statements that didn’t make sense.” Mr. Helms was also asked about the relationship between the Agency and the FBI during the investigation. As in the past, Helms asserted that CIA played a supporting role to the FBI and the Warren Commission and that domestic investigations were outside of CIA’s purview. So, according to Helms, it would have been logical for the CIA to contact the Bureau when Oswald returned from the USSR and to pass the investigation on to them. When told that there is no record of this having been done, Helms said that he has an idea that even if there was nothing formal, the FBI would have understood that it was their task. Mr. Gunn noted that when the CIA picked up the intercept of Oswald in Mexico City, the station did not notify the FBI in Mexico City. Mr. Helms thinks that the station would have informed headquarters and headquarters would have contacted the Bureau. He claimed that relations were too formal at the time to permit Win Scott to go across the hall in Mexico City and personally tell the Legat. Mr. Helms offered nothing that might suggest the existence of unidentified assassination records. Mr. Gunn presented the Ambassador with text from a Michael Beschloss book (The Crisis Years, pp. 682 & 787) which quotes Helms as having said that Johnson asked for a study of the assassination by the CIA. Helms replied that there was no additional inquiry and no report. He did not remember ever saying this to Beschloss. Mr. Gunn also asked about the possibility that some sort of back-channel communication existed. Mr. Helms stated that, other than the official channel, there was no channel of communication between Mexico City and headquarters or between other stations, such as JMWAVE, and headquarters. He added that Counterintelligence did not have its own channel of communication and that in Mexico City the FBI did not have its own channel of communication. And when Ms. McAuliffe asked him about President Johnson’s notion that JFK’s assassination might have been an act of retribution for the death of President Diem of Vietnam, Helms responded that this was Johnson’s idea and that CIA would not have followed up on a “red herring.” Helms also called suspicion of Cuban involvement a “red herring.” As the interview drew toward its conclusion, Helms commented on the persistence of conspiracy theories in a characteristic manner: “One of the problems of secrets is that Americans are incapable of keeping secrets very long. Anything like this would have leaked out by now.” Our short discussion with Mr. Helms yielded no revelations and no new information. It suggests that a follow-up interview or deposition would not be productive.
  12. The Helms interview was part of an episode of the CBS news program 48 Hours. The program devoted an entire episode to the JFK assassination because of the attention that the Stone film was receiving in 1992. There is a document in the Russ Holmes Work File which concerns Helms contacting CIA before his appearance to "ask CIA to check on the following: Did we have any people in Dallas 23 November 1963?" The documents also notes that "...Helms is going to be visiting the Agency early next week. (Evidently prior to his appearance on the show)"
  13. One of the documents released in 2022 was a request form for documentation for Morales. One of the requested documents was a Texas driver's license. The form noted that Morales already had a Washington, D.C. backstopped license. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10121-10267.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...