David Talbot : Gordon Campbell

[William Kelly]

Gordon Campbell

Captain, United States Navy

From a contemporary press report:

Captain Gordon Campbell, United States Navy (Ret.) died December 5, 2000. His ashes will be inurned at Arlington National Cemetery.

Born on October 1, 1905 in Washington, D.C. he grew up in Honolulu, Hawaii, Fort Stevens, Georgia., and other Army Posts.

After prepping at Merion Institute in Alabama, he entered the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1926. He served on surface ships and submarines, his last command being the heavy cruiser USS Columbus.

After retirement from the Navy in 1956 he was employed at Wright Machinery Co. until 1963.

He is survived by his wife Addo S. Campbell, daughter, Jayne C. Byal of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., four grandchildren, and three great grandchildren.

Posted: 14 October 2001 Updated: 20 November 2005

GORDON CAMPBELL – (Bradley Ayers, The Zenith Secret)

p.38:

On Monday I went to the station early, hoping to get a good start on my after-action report. I was beginning to organize my thoughts about the mission….Ted Shackley wanted as few people as possible to know about my trip to Cuba. I asked his secretary Maggy, who else might see my after-action report. I was most concerned about David Morales' reaction to my critical observations…. 'Dave is away in Mexico. Possibly Gordon will see it.'"

"I knew she was referring to Gordon Campbell, the deputy chief of station, who I had not met yet."

p. 45:

"Before leaving for the Keys, I stopped by the station to pick up a few supplies. There was a note on my desk. I was to see Gordon Campbell, the deputy chief of station before leaving. I'd never met him. What the hell? I thought. Campbell's office was in the building next to Ted Shackley's. But when I got there, Maggy told me to go to the second floor of the old barracks, a floor above my own office in the training branch. I'd never been in that area of the building."

"I walked back to my building and went upstairs. Campbell's office was well-decorated, with all sorts of Zenith Technical Enterprises corporate plaques, alleged product displays, photos and mementoes. His secretary buzzed him on my arrival and I was escorted into his plush office."

"Campbell came around his desk, introduced himself, and shook my hand. I judged his age to be around 40 and he appeared in robust physical condition. Dressed as if he had just come off the golf course, tanned, clean shaven, with a trim build, balding blond hair, and penetrating blue eyes, he greeted me cordially. I liked him immediately."

" 'I've been wanting to meet you and welcome you to the station. I'm sorry it's taken so long. I want to tell you we appreciate what you're working on. I also read your after action report and I think you know what needs to be done.'"

"I told him I'd do my best and we exchanged a few thoughts about the exile training program. As I left his office, he told me to be careful and that he would be seeing me again."

p. 56:

"I attended both briefings. All the branch chiefs were there aw well as Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Harvey from Washington accompanied by Ted Shackley and Campbell. David Morales introduced Mr. David Phillips who was identified as a coordinator for the new initiatives with the exile organizations."

p. 80 :

"On the way down US 1, I stopped at the Green Turtle Inn in Islamorada for a bowl of soup. It was early afternoon and most of the lunch crowd had left. But near the back of the restaurant, seated at a large circular table, were Dave Morales, Mr. Harvey, Gordon Campbell, Mr. Phillips, and another man, possibly Rosselli, whose back was turned on me. They apparently had stopped for lunch and drinks. I don't know if they recognized me or not. As was the practice in such situations, within the agency, there was no acknowledgement, either way. Discretely, I got my soup to go and quickly left. It was the first time I had ever seen the station hierarchy in the Keys and out of their air-conditioned offices. It was encouraging., maybe something big was in the offing. I thought."

p. 86:

"…We were going to a meeting place in the Everglades….We pulled into a truck stop at the junction of Tamiami Trail and Hightway 27, and another man – a Cuban who I had never seen before – checked the license of the car and climbed in. No one spoke as we drove down the long, slightly traveled highway and eventually turned onto a dirt road bordered by canal. After about a mile, the driver pulled over. An airboat was waiting in the canal, and in moments we were noisily skimming across the saw grass as dusk settled over the glades…..After nearly 30 minutes of travel across open swampland and deep canals, we turned under some overhanging trees and pulled up to a small dock behind another airboat. A sign on the rotting timbers read 'Waloos Glades Hunting Camp – No Tresspassing.' It was nearly dark, but I could see two small Quonsets with lights burning in the windows. Some men were standing around a campfire in the middle of the clearing, and in its flickering light I could see two helicopter parked in the shadows. One was a military Bell H-13 with the identification numbers taped over, and the other was a civilian chopper with the name West Palm Beach air service on the tail rotor boom."

"We walked to the fire and a young man handed us cups of coffee. I had never seen the men before. Soon the door to one of the Quonsets swung open and four men emerged. As they moved into the circle of firelight I recognized Gordon Campbell. I had seen him only a few times since my brief meeting with him, but had been impressed with his polished, slightly flamboyant executive manner. I caught my breath at the appearance of the second man. It was the attorney general, Robert Kennedy."

"The four men talked in low voices for a few minutes, and then the attorney general came over and shook hands with each of us, wishing us good luck and God's speed on our mission."

"Hell, I didn't even know what my mission was. His white teeth flashed and sparkled, and I felt a strange sense of strength and resolve when he grasped my hand. Then he and one of the Cubans went to the civilian helicopter, an din minutes it took off. Now I understood the need for extra secrecy. If the president felt strongly enough to send his brother, something very big was being planned."

"When the helicopter was gone, the deputy chief of station came over….he said, 'The reason we've got you here and the reason for all the secrecy is that we just got the green light from upstairs to go ahead on some missions we've been planning for some time.'"

"We entered the Quonset….Campbell closed the door behind us and turned to face me. 'We're very pleased with the way you've handled the training setup for the station so far, and we've made that known to your people at the Pentagon. We know it hasn't been easy for you and your family….You'll be happy to know that the Special Group has finally given us permission to use two-man submarines to strike Castro's ships in the harbors. Some of your UDT people will be involved in that. And next week Rip's boys are going to Elgin for parachute training, so an airborne commando raid may not be far off. But right now we've got the go-ahead to hit one of the major oil refineries from on the island. All we've got to do is get a commando force in shape to do the job."

" 'We want you to take a commando force of 12 men and give them six weeks of the toughest, most realistic training you can. We want you to teach them survival and get them physically toughened up. Then we want you to run some exercises for them, and finally, wet up a rehearsal for the actual raid, and do it over and over until they have it down blindfolded. During this six weeks we want you to eat, sleep, and live this mission with the Cubans, 24 hours a day. We want them ready to go by mid-December."

"….We've got a house on the south end of Elliot Key that's never been used…you can run the training from there…..You'll have to keep up with your regular duties in addition to working with this commando group. Again, no one is to know that. David is sometimes a little bit difficult, so you'll deal directly with me on anything you need. Use the telephone, and we'll meet away from the station. After you get set, I'll give you a complete scenario for the mission and as much data as we have on the target itself."

"…. 'My outside man, Karl, will help you with logistics. Take the deliveries and carry the items to the island yourself. Order as little as you have to from logistics, and buy all your own food….Here's the safehouse key and $1,000 to get things moving….'"

"Campbell introduced me to Tony Sforza, the commando team contact man, and Karl…."

p. 92:

"I felt an urgency to discuss the leadership aspect of the mission early on with Mr. Campbell....So I decided to talk to Karl about the problem…Campbell had placed no restrictions on what I might discuss with his right-hand man."

[/size]

"My trip across the bay was faster than usual, and I arrived at the restaurant near the Coral Castle ahead of our scheduled meeting. I saw Karl, Dave Morales, Rosselli, and Mr. Phillips sitting at a table near the back of the room. When I saw all but Karl leave, three to the same car, I went back to meet him. Over a beer, I told him of my observations with Campbell. Karl was pretty savvy and agreed. On the way back to Black Point I pondered Karl's apparent familiarity with the principal staff at JM/WAVE as I had observed it. I was impressed. Karl was obviously something more than the typical logistics gofer."

p. 93 :

"I stole a few hours extra sleep the next morning, then went out to Coconut Grove, where I was to meet Gordon Campbell. He and his wife lived on a yacht moored at the Dinner Key marina. I walked down a long concrete pier, past sleek, expensive cruisers, and finally found Gordon's boat. Both he and his wife – an attractive bikini-clad silver-haired women – were well into their Sunday afternoon martinis."

"As he mixed me a drink, he asked, 'What do you think of the men? How do they look – morale, interest - you know, guts for the job?'"

"'They look very good so far,' I replied, 'but there's one big problem, the commandos have no real leader. The team is split into two distinct, separate groups of five and six men each…and they seem to want to stay that way. As long as I give orders, there's no problem, but when they're on their own, the so-called leader makes suggestions and the other two follow only if they feel like it. It's too loose to be effective under pressure.'"

" 'Goddamnit, if a leader is a problem, then you find one! The case officer for these boys will be down from Washington in a few weeks. He's been with the Cuban desk studying the situation and he's well-read. Porter is young but he knows his stuff. I've assured him you'd have the team ready to go.'"

"Had I heard right? Somebody who worked behind a desk at Langley was suddenly going to appear on the scene and take over where I left off? Just like that? I'd train them and someone else would step in and simply 'assume' control? I started to say something, but caught myself. This was something totally beyond my control, and no good would come from an argument with Campbell at this point. I took a big swallow of my drink. 'I'll continue to do my best on the leadership situation. Gordon, I can assure you that having a leader would make my own work easier. More importantly, these are good men, and they deserve a good leader."

"The anger passed from his face and he mixed us both another drink. 'All right, let's go below. I have the charts and photos and we'll go over the mission from beginning to end."

"For the better part of the next two hours we pored over refinery blueprints and incredibly detailed U-2 photos and recently smuggled-out snapshots of the target. The time schedule was set in the familiar D-day, H-hour military terminology, and Campbell would not tell me when the raid would be conducted. We had to be ready to go anytime after the first of December. He wanted at least two rehearsals competed by then, and there was little time left."

"Our discussion terminated when Mrs. Campbell came down to the gallery carrying drinks for all of us. She chided us for spending the 'glorious Sunday afternoon' talking business, and threw her heavily oiled, deeply tanned body into her husband's lap. Her obvious attention seeking embarrassed me, so I drank quickly, thanked Gordon, and said I'd contact him."

"It wasn't until I'd left the yacht that I realized Campbell hadn't given me the exact location of the refinery; he's said only that it was on the south central coast of Cuba. It probably had been intentional, I concluded, but I had enough data to get well into advanced training and preliminary rehearsals anyway."

"The mission was a big one, all right, and tough. In a very complex, precisely timed raid, the commandos would destroy the fuel storage tanks, dock, and ship-to-shore product-transfer pipelines of the refinery. As I drove home, I reviewed the details Gordon had given me. Two fishing trawlers would be used as mother ships for three V-20s. At a shallow water point about a mile from the target, one boat would land and the team would go ashore, under cover of darkness. The other two boats would wait offshore, among the mangroves, for completion of the first phase of the mission."

"The landed commando team would move down the shore to the pier that supported the pipeline. They would kill the guards on the pier, and then eliminate the watchman in the small tin shack at the end of the pier. This accomplished, they would signal the other two V-20s to come to the end of the pier, where the boats would be tied until the mission was completed."

"The landed commando team would move down the shore to the pier and around the refinery yard fence to a position behind a low hill that was about eleven hundred yards from the brightly illuminated crackling towers and processing facilities. Two 81mm mortars would be set up; from an observation position on high ground; their fire would be guided into the refinery proper. White phosphorous ordinance would be used, in the hope that the cracking towers would catch fire immediately and the surrounding fuel storage tanks would explode. Approximately twenty mortar round would be fired into the refinery."

"Meanwhile, time-activated demolition charges would be fastened to the pipeline pier, and 'clams' (round TNT charges with magnetic devices to hold them to metal objects) would be attached to the transfer pipeline. By the time the entire commando force withdrew, the refinery would be engulfed in flames."

"As the two V-20s pulled away, the timer would activate, and the pier and the pipeline would explode behind them. The commandos would return to the trawlers waiting several miles offshore. Another time-activated explosive would destroy the beached V-20."

p. 99:

"Communications between Elliott Key and the mainland had been a problem from the beginning….The only way I could maintain secure contact with Gordon Campbell, Karl, and Tony was to go ashore to the pay phone at Black Point…..Sometimes I'd go for days without contact…On other occasions I'd get word that Campbell and Karl were out of the area and was given no idea when they might return my call…."

p. 102:

"….I immediately recognized the plane as the single-engine Cessna based at the CIA headquarters in Miami. As it flew overhead, a white object was released directly over the old house. It was a roll of toilet tissue, streaming as it fell. It landed only a few feet away….The center tube of the tissue role had been closed with masking tape, and the word 'OPEN' had been scrawled on the side with black marking pencil. Hastily, I opened up the tube and pulled out the paper inside. It was Campbell's printing:

NOVEMBER 22 1963

PRESIDENT KENNEDY HAS BEEN SHOT BY AN ASSASSIN. SUSPEND ALL ACTIIVTY. KEEP MEN ON ISLAND. COME ASHORE WITHOUT DELAY.

GORDON

p. 104 :

"More than a month after the assassination that I spoke with Mr. Campbell about the Elliot Key commandos. He directed me to hold off any additional rehearsals but to go on training at a reduced pace."

p. 105:

"Gordon Campbell and Karl had all but disappeared during this period and the Elliot Key operation, for which I had been responsible, was placed under control of the training branch. Cal had departed for anew assignment in Washington at the CIA 'farm' in Virginia. Rudy temporarily assumed duties as chief of training….Eventually, and old CIA training officer, Ernie Sparks, arrived and took over as chief of branch….Ernie dressed in Western style, with cowboy boots, jeans and open collared riding shirt. Often he would have a big revolver holstered at his side. He was about 50, with gray hair, a droopy mustache, ruddy complexion, and piercing blue eyes. He was portly but muscular. He could have been a Wild West movie character. He had been nicknamed 'Sitting Bull' while serving as a training officer in Guatemala, preparing Cuban exile Brigade 2506 for the Bay of Pigs invasion. As the time went by I learned he had a penchant for booze, women and sports cars….."

p. 181 :

"…The cover office, staffed with full-time secretaries and decorated to appear as a typical business headquarters. Shackley would never be there, but either Clines or Campbell would when it was useful to present Zenith Technical Enterprise's face to the world. The Maritime Branch was located in the same building, and for that reason, it was most convenient for Campbell, who was running that branch, to man the cover office….and I found it interesting in Fonzi's book there was no mention of Campbell. Campbell was identified in Deadly Secrets, however. This would become a matter of significance in my future work."

[John Simkin]

Bill, thank you for returning to this subject. Do you know if anybody has provided new evidence to question the view of Gordon Campbell provided by David Talbot and Jeff Morley?

[William Kelly]

I have to comment on this since I think its a dangerous slide.

First, let me preface this with what Tony Summers said when this story first broke: photographic identification is very iffy. Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, I would rather stay away from it. I don't have to detail why this is so. The history of these "sightings" in the JFK case proves that i e. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Harrelson, Conein, MIlteer etc. This happens a lot with photos. And everyone knows that.

Morley and Talbot went into their investigation wanting to believe it. They DID believe the story was true to begin with. I talked to Talbot about this myself. And I had to calm him down about it. I cautioned him that stories like this are made to order to fall apart. He had to be careful. And I especially did not trust the Dave Rabern guy who seemed a little too mysterious for me. What exactly was he doing there that night and why?

Here is another problem I had with this whole scenario: in an operation like this, you would not have CIA higher ups in plain view of still cameras and motion picture cameras. It makes no sense, and this is what I told Talbot at the beginning. Further, Johannides was not an action officer. He is a desk guy who was in Athens at the time.

The whole thing is that the picture of Campbell at the Ambassador does NOT really look like him. Neither does the one of Johannides. I mean just look at the picture of the latter in Shane's book, a good close up which he saves until the end of the discussion.

There ARE photographs of what Shane said was Morales at the Ambassador. And its probably the worst likeness of all three. For instance Manny Chavez and Luis Fernandez both worked with Morales. They both said the photo was not him. Luis said, "Definitely, he is not Dave Morales. This person seems taller, more slender, and lighter color. Dave was fat and round faced and darker complexion...." (O'Sullivan, p. 456) Ruben Carbajal, who knew Morales, saw the clips. He said, "No way; that is not him at all." (p. 439) Ed Wilson, another CIA officer, said, "That's not Dave. No." (p. 451) Further, Morales' daughters both said he was in Laos at the time. (ibid p. 463) When shown the pictures, both daughters said it was not him. Neither did his grandson. Neither did his son. (ibid, p 464-66) THAT IS EIGHT PEOPLE WHO SAID ITS NOT HIM. In fact, one of the daughters showed Shane pics from that time period, Those pics convinced Shane, and Talbot, the guy at the Ambassador was not Morales. (p. 466)

In fact, Shane's initial identifications were not really strong. This is from my review of his book:

"But by detailing his inquiry into the matter, O'Sullivan proves that the identifications he had before he went on BBC were anything but conclusive. I actually counted the identification attempts the author describes in Chapter 17. From what I could see, in each case, he had at least as many witnesses who either denied the identification or were uncertain as he had those that were positive. In fact, in his best case—that of Johannides—I counted two positives, three unsure or maybes, and one negative. And one of the positives, by Dan Hardway, was only leaning that way. Further, when one sees a photo of the real Johannides, it is clear that the man at the hotel was not he. (p. 373) O'Sullivan holds this photo until his last page on the subject. One has to question his judgment on this matter and why he so implicitly trusted a character like the mysterious Dave Rabern. This is a CIA friend of Brad Ayers who I discussed in my review of O'Sullivan's documentary."

Further, the LAPD identified the "Campbell" and "Johannides" figures as Roman and Owens. And Owens does not really look like Johannides, just look at the picture in Shane's book yourself. Tim Kolaris was Johannides' nephew. When he was shown the photo he said, "That is not my uncle: I can tell you that. I don't know how anybody who ever knew him could say that is him." (Ibid p. 460) But they got family members who did ID them as Roman and Owens.

This insistence on keeping this kind of stuff alive leads to the recent BOR appearance of Jim Fetzer saying that somehow the CIA planted a "false family" on Roman. This makes no sense. Why? Because if you study the RFK case, the planners did such a god job in selling that as an open and shut case, that just about everyone accepted the initial illusion. If you study the RFK case you will learn that--unlike the JFK case-- there was no real debate about who killed RFK until AFTER Sirhan was convicted. This is when the famous Lillian Castellano article was published in LA Free Press. And further, there was no real CIA suspicion in the crime until even after that.

Fetzer also talked about their "inter action"--but Owens and Roman knew each other. And they also knew the third guy. As per not weeping afterwards--they were not there for the rally for RFK. They were there for a business trip. Big difference.

We don't need this stuff to prove there was a CIA involved conspiracy at the Ambassador that night. We know there was a conspiracy through Noguchi's autopsy, the excess holes in the pantry, and the Von Pragg tape. We know it was CIA related because of the work of people like Turner and Christian on the figure of William J. Bryan who admitted he was chief of brainwashing for the US government. Also because of the role of the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress, and the roles of Pena and Hernandez. All one has to do is listen to the chilling audio tape of the latter's polygraph of Sandy Serrano to see the man's past training and background, which he more or less admits there.

And then check and see how he got paid off afterward for his cover up work.

In light of all that, and much more, we don' t need these dubious IDs of Morales, Campbell and Johannides when they were not there. And it makes no sense for them to be there with Kodaks and move cameras clicking for all to see.

There is too much really good evidence in that case to waste time on stuff that can so easily be discredited. I would much rather talk about things like Bryan, DeWayne Wolfer, Serrano, the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress, and Special Exhibit Ten.

I agree with Jim and think its a waste of time.

I think the whole deal with the RFK photos was to discredit Brad Ayers and Wayne Smith, both of whom, because of their previous official US government positions as head of training at JMWAVE and the US Embassy in Havana, knew many of the principalsinvolved in the JFK assassination.

We don't need Campbell or Joannides to be at the Ambassador when they are already involved in the JFK hit because of their roles at JMWAVE and with DRE.

I'd like to forget the whole Ambassador spiel, and get back to the what Campbell and Joannides were doing at JMWAVE and with the DRE, both connected directly to what happened at Dealey Plaza.

If there are more and different photos of either Campbell or Joannides in Shane's book I'd like to see them.

I'd also like to know the name of Campbell's sailboat that he kept at that marina, and what his wife's name was, and what else more can be learned about him.

After all, he was responsible for Ayers' training a special commando unit for an approved incersion into Cuba to blow up an oil refinery, a team that was led by Tony Sforza and Julio Fernandez, both tied to the Dealey Plaza operation,

and said to be personally approved by RFK and included a case officer named Porter Goss, a still living witness who has yet to testify about any of these things.

I say forget the Ambassador story and stick with what really happened at JMWAVE and how they are connected to what happened in Dallas.

BK

Fetzer: The situation with regard to Talbot and Morley, however, seems to me to be far more serious. They appear to have minimized the strength and the variety of the evidence supporting the identifications. In my opinion, their performance here has been simply inexcusable. While Bill Kelly has dismissed the issue because we have other evidence, that is grossly inappropriate if we intend to discover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the assassinations of some of our country's strongest and most capable and inspiring leaders.

Monk: It is, in my opinion, unnecessary for a researcher to discount evidence. All evidence needs to be weighed and measured irrespective of how it impacts one's own pre-existing beliefs. So, dismissing "supporting" evidence because we have "other evidence" is not productive. That is partly the reason some CT researchers deny Zapruder film alteration or remain agnostic about it.

BK: Well, if we ever get Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act or a grand jury investigation of the assassination, Wayne Smith and Brad Ayers would certainly be high on the witness list, but not for their false identification of Joannides and Campbell at the Ambassador, but for what they know about David Atlee Phillips in Havana, and Phillips, Campbell, Joannides, Shackley, Morales, Fernandez and Spfora at JMWAVE and their association with Dealey Plaza.

Of course, both Smith and Ayers have been compromised by the whole Ambassador schmeile, which I think was a set up to discredit them and others in the first place, and Morley and Talbott, two of the most respected journalists on this case, were also almost dragged into the gutter with them but pulled themselves out before they got too muddy.

Their mission in the first place, the assignment from the mainstream media publication in NYC, was misdirected, and should not have been to uncover Joannides, Campbell and Morales at the Ambassador, as Shane and the photos seemed to indicate to some people who knew them, their assignment should have been to uncover what Joannides, Campbell and Morales were doing at JMWAVE and how it is connected to Dealey Plaza - THAT is the story no one now is even looking into because everybody got sidetracked to the Ambassador.

Also, the discussion on the Tramps and the controversary over their photo ID illustrates how difficult it is to base an identification of anyone on photographs. BYW, I interviewed Holt on the record on tape at his home in San Diego in 1992 and wrote an article for Jerry Rose's Fourth Decade - Meet Chauncey Holt, that may have influenced Rose's thinking on the matter.

But that discussion should be held under the appropriate threads that have been started previously - and not here - a thread that should be dedicated to Gordon Campbell, who he was, what became of him, and how his operations at JMWAVE need to be understood in order to figure out what happened at Dealey Plaza.

What happened to him, the subject of this thread? Did he sail off into the sunset with his bikini clad wife and martinis?

Bill Kelly

Edited August 20, 2010 by William Kelly

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Something is warping DiEugenio's ability to reason clearly, which I suppose is psychological. I asked Brad if it might have been possible for the CIA to fabricate a family to discount the prospect that Campbell was at the Ambassador. It was a question for which the answer was obvious: OF COURSE! That would be child's play for the agency, yet Jim presents it as though I were making a false move. The fact of the matter is that the family's response was highly equivocal, as Shane reports on page 473 of WHO KILLED BOBBY?, where he son himself initially wasn't sure it was his father and one of his daughters questioned his appearance. The photograph of Roman that appears toward the end of "RFK Must Die", moreover, does not look like Campbell: he has too much hair and the shape of his face is different. It may be enough to convince DiEugenio, but his standards for acceptance are pitiful.

Take his discussion of the identification of Morales. He says "EIGHT PEOPLE SAID ITS (sic) NOT HIM" without bothering to take into account whether they might have had motives for denying the identity. They include his daughters! I can't imagine anyone who would have a stronger motive for denying that the man in the footage from the Ambassador was THEIR FATHER. Fernandez and Chavez worked with Morales, but are also not credible. Fernandez, for example, says "definitely that is not Dave Morales" when many others have said that it was. When even Tom Clines says "It looks like him but it's not him" (page 450), then a definitive rejection is not a reasonable response. Shane observes about Clines, who tries to minimize Ayer's competence, and Wilson, who also didn't identify Morales in a 1959 photo, that they appeared to have motives to protect Morales that Ayers and Smith did not.

Carbajal told Shane that Morales had been in Dallas and, in relation to his statement, "I was in Los Angeles when we got Bobby", he sought to defect its significance by claiming that he said, "when they got Bobby", which is highly implausible on its face. Morales was a very "hands-on" guy. The "evidence" DiEugenio cites is not only far weaker than he implies, but the evidence for their identifications is quite substantially stronger. Indeed, one of the glaring inadequacies of the Morley and Talbot article, "The BBC's Flawed RFK Story", is that they, too, minimize the number of persons who identified Morales, Joannides and Campbell to such an extent that it is difficult not to infer that they were deliberately suppressing evidence rather than searching for the truth. They mention FOUR SOURCES for identifications, each of whom they acknowledge as having identified EXACTLY ONE of the three men:

* Wayne Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* David Rabern identified the same person as Morales

* Brad Ayers identified one of them as Gordon Campbell

* Ed Lopez identified one of them as George Joannides

That's it! But something is wrong with this atrophied list of identifications, which was actually vastly more extensive. In THE ZENITH SECRET, for example, Brad identifies not only Morales and Campbell but another man he knew if not by name (Joannides). As he explains in the book, he undertook extensive research to track down Morales. So their list should obviously also include at least the following:

* Brad Ayers identified another man as David Morales

* Brad Ayers identified George Joannides but not by name

In additional, as Shane explains, Dan Hardway (page 458) and Tom Polgar (page 459) also identified Joannides, which should read:

* Dan Hardway identified one of them as George Joannides

* Tom Polgar identified the same man as George Joannides

Moreover, when Joannies' daughters were asked if their father was in the videos, they responded with "No comment!" (page 447), which suggests that they, too, recognized their father. If it was not him, after all, surely they would have simply said "No!"

* Joannides daughters did not deny the identification

And Robert Walton (page 436) and Ruben Carbajal (pages 426-427) reported that Morales himself had implied that he was involved:

* Robert Walton reported Morales had said he was there

* Rube Carbajal partially supported what Walton reported

And there is more. In "RFK Must Die", Shane also interviews Harrison Smith, who confirms the identification of David Morales. And, while I am unable to verify the spelling, Chili Borha (?) confirms the identification of George Joannides. We should add

* Harrison Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* Chili Borha (?) identified another as George Joannides

The quality of the identifications also seems to have escaped DiEugenio, Talbot and Morley. Ayers served at JM/WAVE from May 1963 to December 1964 and worked with all three of them. The very idea that he would have been unable to identify Campbell when Campbell was his case officer verges on the absurd. If his case officer was not Gordon Campbell, he was someone who was using the name of "Gordon Campbell" and was the same person whom he identified in the videos from the Ambassador. Wayne Smith identified Morales immediately, even before Shane asked him if he recognized anyone in the footage. I am inclined to be more forgiving of DiEugenio's lapses in dealing with this issue, because he appears to have a limited facility for critical thinking.

The situation with regard to Talbot and Morley, however, seems to me to be far more serious. They appear to have minimized the strength and the variety of the evidence supporting the identifications. In my opinion, their performance here has been simply inexcusable. While Bill Kelly has dismissed the issue because we have other evidence, that is grossly inappropriate if we intend to discover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the assassinations of some of our country's strongest and most capable and inspiring leaders. Our culture is so visually oriented that evidence of this kind has the potential to convince a large segment of the population that the CIA was profoundly involved, not only in the assassination of JFK but in rubbing out his brother, Bobby, and thereby denying the American people the right to determine who should govern the United States.

I have to comment on this since I think its a dangerous slide.

First, let me preface this with what Tony Summers said when this story first broke: photographic identification is very iffy. Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, I would rather stay away from it. I don't have to detail why this is so. The history of these "sightings" in the JFK case proves that i e. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Harrelson, Conein, MIlteer etc. This happens a lot with photos. And everyone knows that.

Morley and Talbot went into their investigation wanting to believe it. They DID believe the story was true to begin with. I talked to Talbot about this myself. And I had to calm him down about it. I cautioned him that stories like this are made to order to fall apart. He had to be careful. And I especially did not trust the Dave Rabern guy who seemed a little too mysterious for me. What exactly was he doing there that night and why?

Here is another problem I had with this whole scenario: in an operation like this, you would not have CIA higher ups in plain view of still cameras and motion picture cameras. It makes no sense, and this is what I told Talbot at the beginning. Further, Johannides was not an action officer. He is a desk guy who was in Athens at the time.

The whole thing is that the picture of Campbell at the Ambassador does NOT really look like him. Neither does the one of Johannides. I mean just look at the picture of the latter in Shane's book, a good close up which he saves until the end of the discussion.

There ARE photographs of what Shane said was Morales at the Ambassador. And its probably the worst likeness of all three. For instance Manny Chavez and Luis Fernandez both worked with Morales. They both said the photo was not him. Luis said, "Definitely, he is not Dave Morales. This person seems taller, more slender, and lighter color. Dave was fat and round faced and darker complexion...." (O'Sullivan, p. 456) Ruben Carbajal, who knew Morales, saw the clips. He said, "No way; that is not him at all." (p. 439) Ed Wilson, another CIA officer, said, "That's not Dave. No." (p. 451) Further, Morales' daughters both said he was in Laos at the time. (ibid p. 463) When shown the pictures, both daughters said it was not him. Neither did his grandson. Neither did his son. (ibid, p 464-66) THAT IS EIGHT PEOPLE WHO SAID ITS NOT HIM. In fact, one of the daughters showed Shane pics from that time period, Those pics convinced Shane, and Talbot, the guy at the Ambassador was not Morales. (p. 466)

In fact, Shane's initial identifications were not really strong. This is from my review of his book:

"But by detailing his inquiry into the matter, O'Sullivan proves that the identifications he had before he went on BBC were anything but conclusive. I actually counted the identification attempts the author describes in Chapter 17. From what I could see, in each case, he had at least as many witnesses who either denied the identification or were uncertain as he had those that were positive. In fact, in his best case—that of Johannides—I counted two positives, three unsure or maybes, and one negative. And one of the positives, by Dan Hardway, was only leaning that way. Further, when one sees a photo of the real Johannides, it is clear that the man at the hotel was not he. (p. 373) O'Sullivan holds this photo until his last page on the subject. One has to question his judgment on this matter and why he so implicitly trusted a character like the mysterious Dave Rabern. This is a CIA friend of Brad Ayers who I discussed in my review of O'Sullivan's documentary."

Further, the LAPD identified the "Campbell" and "Johannides" figures as Roman and Owens. And Owens does not really look like Johannides, just look at the picture in Shane's book yourself. Tim Kolaris was Johannides' nephew. When he was shown the photo he said, "That is not my uncle: I can tell you that. I don't know how anybody who ever knew him could say that is him." (Ibid p. 460) But they got family members who did ID them as Roman and Owens.

This insistence on keeping this kind of stuff alive leads to the recent BOR appearance of Jim Fetzer saying that somehow the CIA planted a "false family" on Roman. This makes no sense. Why? Because if you study the RFK case, the planners did such a god job in selling that as an open and shut case, that just about everyone accepted the initial illusion. If you study the RFK case you will learn that--unlike the JFK case-- there was no real debate about who killed RFK until AFTER Sirhan was convicted. This is when the famous Lillian Castellano article was published in LA Free Press. And further, there was no real CIA suspicion in the crime until even after that.

Fetzer also talked about their "inter action"--but Owens and Roman knew each other. And they also knew the third guy. As per not weeping afterwards--they were not there for the rally for RFK. They were there for a business trip. Big difference.

We don't need this stuff to prove there was a CIA involved conspiracy at the Ambassador that night. We know there was a conspiracy through Noguchi's autopsy, the excess holes in the pantry, and the Von Pragg tape. We know it was CIA related because of the work of people like Turner and Christian on the figure of William J. Bryan who admitted he was chief of brainwashing for the US government. Also because of the role of the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress, and the roles of Pena and Hernandez. All one has to do is listen to the chilling audio tape of the latter's polygraph of Sandy Serrano to see the man's past training and background, which he more or less admits there.

And then check and see how he got paid off afterward for his cover up work.

In light of all that, and much more, we don' t need these dubious IDs of Morales, Campbell and Johannides when they were not there. And it makes no sense for them to be there with Kodaks and move cameras clicking for all to see.

There is too much really good evidence in that case to waste time on stuff that can so easily be discredited. I would much rather talk about things like Bryan, DeWayne Wolfer, Serrano, the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress, and Special Exhibit Ten.

Edited August 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Something is warping DiEugenio's ability to reason clearly, which I suppose is psychological. I asked Brad if it might have been possible for the CIA to fabricate a family to discount the prospect that Campbell was at the Ambassador. It was a question for which the answer was obvious: OF COURSE! That would be child's play for the agency, yet Jim presents it as though I were making a false move. The fact of the matter is that the family's response was highly equivocal, as Shane reports on page 473 of WHO KILLED BOBBY?, where he son himself initially wasn't sure it was his father and one of his daughters questioned his appearance. The photograph of Roman that appears toward the end of "RFK Must Die", moreover, does not look like Campbell: he has too much hair and the shape of his face is different. It may be enough to convince DiEugenio, but his standards for acceptance are pitiful.

Jim, I sometimes observe what I perceive to be: JD's "odd reasoning", as well--but, I don't claim to know its source! That was humorous!

Take his discussion of the identification of Morales. He says "EIGHT PEOPLE SAID ITS (sic) NOT HIM" without bothering to take into account whether they might have had motives for denying the identity. They include his daughters! I can't imagine anyone who would have a stronger motive for denying that the man in the footage from the Ambassador was THEIR FATHER.

Yeah, I agree, that is weak--and inconclusive, at best.

Fernandez and Chavez worked with Morales, but are also not credible. Fernandez, for example, says "definitely that is not Dave Morales" when many others have said that it was.

Why is Fernandez not credible? (I'm not arguing that he is credible, but why isn't he?)

When even Tom Clines says "It looks like him but it's not him" (page 450), then a definitive rejection is not a reasonable response. Shane observes about Clines, who tries to minimize Ayer's competence, and Wilson, who also didn't identify Morales in a 1959 photo, that they appeared to have motives to protect Morales that Ayers and Smith did not.

IMO: Those are all red flags, and quite obvious.

Carbajal told Shane that Morales had been in Dallas and, in relation to his statement, "I was in Los Angeles when we got Bobby", he sought to defect its significance by claiming that he said, "when they got Bobby", which is highly implausible on its face. Morales was a very "hands-on" guy. The "evidence" DiEugenio cites is not only far weaker than he implies, but the evidence for their identifications is quite substantially stronger. Indeed, one of the glaring inadequacies of the Morley and Talbot article, "The BBC's Flawed RFK Story", is that they, too, minimize the number of persons who identified Morales, Joannides and Campbell to such an extent that it is difficult not to infer that they were deliberately suppressing evidence rather than searching for the truth. They mention FOUR SOURCES for identifications, each of whom they acknowledge as having identified EXACTLY ONE of the three men:

* Wayne Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* David Rabern identified the same person as Morales

* Brad Ayers identified one of them as Gordon Campbell

* Ed Lopez identified one of them as George Joannides

That's it! But something is wrong with this atrophied list of identifications, which was actually vastly more extensive. In THE ZENITH SECRET, for example, Brad identifies not only Morales and Campbell but another man he knew if not by name (Joannides). As he explains in the book, he undertook extensive research to track down Morales. So their list should obviously also include at least the following:

* Brad Ayers identified another man as David Morales

* Brad Ayers identified George Joannides but not by name

In additional, as Shane explains, Dan Hardway (page 458) and Tom Polgar (page 459) also identified Joannides, which should read:

* Dan Hardway identified one of them as George Joannides

* Tom Polgar identified the same man as George Joannides

Moreover, when Joannies' daughters were asked if their father was in the videos, they responded with "No comment!" (page 447), which suggests that they, too, recognized their father. If it was not him, after all, surely they would have simply said "No!"

Yeah, and even if they had said "No!" -- it still could be due to a misplaced loyalty to protect their father, in the same way Morales' daughters denied his presence at the Ambassador. I'm with you, Jim.

* Joannides daughters did not deny the identification

And Robert Walton (page 436) and Ruben Carbajal (pages 426-427) reported that Morales himself had implied that he was involved:

* Robert Walton reported Morales had said he was there

* Rube Carbajal partially supported what Walton reported

And there is more. In "RFK Must Die", Shane also interviews Harrison Smith, who confirms the identification of David Morales. And, while I am unable to verify the spelling, Chili Borha (?) confirms the identification of George Joannides. We should add

* Harrison Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* Chili Borha (?) identified another as George Joannides

The quality of the identifications also seems to have escaped DiEugenio, Talbot and Morley. Ayers served at JM/WAVE from May 1963 to December 1964 and worked with all three of them. The very idea that he would have been unable to identify Campbell when Campbell was his case officer verges on the absurd. If his case officer was not Gordon Campbell, he was someone who was using the name of "Gordon Campbell" and was the same person whom he identified in the videos from the Ambassador. Wayne Smith identified Morales immediately, even before Shane asked him if he recognized anyone in the footage. I am inclined to be more forgiving of DiEugenio's lapses in dealing with this issue, because he appears to have limited facility for critical thinking.

[emphasis added]

I agree that those who are not disinformation artists, but who nevertheless insist on discounting (out of hand) the reliability of identifications made by otherwise competent witnesses, are clearly not using their heads.

The situation with regard to Talbot and Morley, however, seems to me to be far more serious. They appear to have minimized the strength and the variety of the evidence supporting the identifications. In my opinion, their performance here has been simply inexcusable. While Bill Kelly has dismissed the issue because we have other evidence, that is grossly inappropriate if we intend to discover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the assassinations of some of our country's strongest and most capable and inspiring leaders.

It is, in my opinion, unnecessary for a researcher to discount evidence. All evidence needs to be weighed and measured irrespective of how it impacts one's own pre-existing beliefs. So, dismissing "supporting" evidence because we have "other evidence" is not productive. That is partly the reason some CT researchers deny Zapruder film alteration or remain agnostic about it.

Our culture is so visually oriented that evidence of this kind has the potential to convince a large segment of the population that the CIA was profoundly involved, not only in the assassination of JFK but in rubbing out his brother, Bobby, and thereby denying the American people the right to determine who should govern the United States.

IMO, JFK was assassinated by a military ambush "operationally" -- not the CIA. However, the CIA and many other government agencies were deeply involved in the "cover up" (Obstruction of Justice) and continue to be. That is not to say that the agency lacked motive. They had plenty of motive. They just "suck" at that type of operation. They might oversee such a thing--at least limited aspects of it--but they are operationally incompetent on that level. In other words, they lack "the means" to directly do the deed. They can, and do, have "hired hands" to act on their behalf world-wide [read:abroad], but NOT here. I know it sounds naive for me to say that, but it's true. And there is a reason that they don't. There are many reasons that the military had to be involved operationally in Dallas, IMO. The agency "stuck a leg out" into the aisle--sometimes causing "a trip" is all that's required.

Moreover, the Secret Service and supplemental military protection provided by the 113th Army Intelligence Unit Washington, DC (112th 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston), had to be "removed" from the equation to insure success. That "removal" is a function of the CIA...

But I digress..

Edited August 20, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk did a good job of responding to your critique, so I am not going to pursue that here. But I am puzzled by the first paragraph of your post, in which you wrote the following:

First, let me preface this with what Tony Summers said when this story first broke: photographic identification is very iffy. Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, I would rather stay away from it. I don't have to detail why this is so. The history of these "sightings" in the JFK case proves that i e. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Harrelson, Conein, MIlteer etc. This happens a lot with photos. And everyone knows that.

While I agree that the third of the tramps was not E. Howard Hunt (but Chauncey Marvin Holt), the second and tallest was indeed Charles Harrelson, Lucien Conein was the person photographed above JFK's head, Joseph Milteer was (to the best of my knowledge) also photographed in the crowd in Dealey Plaza, so I find this remark very odd. Regarding Conein, for example, I had an extended thread on The Deep Politics Forum about this, eliciting Jack's assistance in comparing the alleged Robert Adams as Lucien Conein, when their features were quite different. Moreover, as I noted in that extended thread, Allan Eaglesham supported this purported identification with a plaque that was OBVIOUSLY faked. I really can't understand why anyone would be taken in. The "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" thread can still be accessed via http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2191 though it is unclear to me whether all of my posts about this issue remain. So I strongly disagree with your insinuation that that identification was mistaken.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&d=1261369572

In another post, "My concurrence with Lois Gibson, Houston Police Department", I explained why I am strongly of the opinion that Lois Gibson was correct in her identifications. If I could only locate it, I have a pamphlet from a missionary organization that shows a photo of Charles Rogers, who apparently served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and was involved in an heroic rescue. Those who do not know the book should read THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL, where I will do a search on amazon.com for more data about it to add here. Apparently, we all agree about Charles Harrelson, where Jack and I disagree, not only about the third tramp--whom he takes to be E. Howard Hunt--but also "Frenchie", where I should think some convergence of opinion ought to be possible.

When I organized a symposium at the Lancer Conference in 2000, as I recall, with Chauncey's daughter, Karyn, and his wife, who presented a portfolio of photographs from family albums and, in several cases, overlaid them with photos of the third tramp, Jerry Rose commented that, while he had been convinced in the past that it was E. Howard Hunt, he had now--based upon this presentation--changed his mind and agreed that it was Chauncey Holt. If Jack had been there, possibly he would have also changed his mind. Perhaps someone might be able to track it down and send a link for members to study? The book, THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL (1992), which is extremely interesting, is by John R. Craig and A. Rogers Phillip. I recommend it highly. So if you doubt these identifications, I think you are simply wrong.

I take it your interest in the photographic evidence equals your interest in the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. No one can grasp the case without encompassing the medical and the photographic evidence.

Fetzer is leaving out some important things.

The Morales daughters knew exactly who their father was. They didn't hide it. One of them actually provided the photos which cinched the case for it not being Morales to Talbot and Shane--WHO BOTH WANTED TO BELIEVE THE STORY!

Who better to go to than family members who actually have photos of other family members. And it they who provide the clinching evidence for reporters and journalists who actually want to believe it was Morales. To me, that is the essence of journalism.

He also ignores what I said about the peculiarities of the RFK case as opposed to the JFK case. There was not a wave of doubting articles in the RFK case until after SIrhan was convicted. There had been stories abut the GIrl in the Polka Dot Dress, but no comprehensive article appeared questioning the bullet angles, number of bullets etc until after the trial was completed which was in the summer of 1969. So there was no need to do such an outlandish thing as plant a false family on anyone since it could so easily blow up and backfire. Why do a high risk thing like that when there was no risk involved at the time.

And if you study the evolution of the quote about Morales being in LA, you will see that it is no tin the original source that is, Fonzi's book.

I went through the original identifications that Shane had. In detail. If you leave out the negatives, and neutralize the fence sitters you can make them sound respectable. But if you don't, as I noted above, they really aren't. If I had been Shane, I would not have gone with the story.

Which is not to say that his book is without value. It is, and I noted the valuable parts in my review. But this is not one of them.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/who_killed_bobby.html

Edited August 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I guess I have a few additional comments that supplement what Monk has already posted. In my opinion, the CIA

was profoundly involved in the assassination, which the Chiefs appear to have supported, where Edward Lansdale

is the most likely candidate for having organized and executed the multiply-triangulated shooting sequence.

Fetzer is leaving out some important things.

The Morales daughters knew exactly who their father was. They didn't hide it. One of them actually provided the photos which cinched the case for it not being Morales to Talbot and Shane--WHO BOTH WANTED TO BELIEVE THE STORY!

So you think that Morales' daughters WANTED TO BELIEVE that he was involved in the assassination of RFK?

Who better to go to than family members who actually have photos of other family members. And it they who provide the clinching evidence for reporters and journalists who actually want to believe it was Morales. To me, that is the essence of journalism.

Family members are obviously going to have conflicts of interest. I can't believe you are unable to grasp that.

He also ignores what I said about the peculiarities of the RFK case as opposed to the JFK case. There was not a wave of doubting articles in the RFK case until after SIrhan was convicted. There had been stories abut the GIrl in the Polka Dot Dress, but no comprehensive article appeared questioning the bullet angles, number of bullets etc until after the trial was completed which was in the summer of 1969. So there was no need to do such an outlandish thing as plant a false family on anyone since it could so easily blow up and backfire. Why do a high risk thing like that when there was no risk involved at the time.

I observed that I was offering a conjecture. It's called "thinking". The family testimony is clearly equivocal.

And if you study the evolution of the quote about Morales being in LA, you will see that it is no tin the original source that is, Fonzi's book.

Fonzi's book, excellent as it may be, is not the end all and the be all of these questions. Why imply that it is?

I went through the original identifications that Shane had. In detail. If you leave out the negatives, and neutralize the fence sitters you can make them sound respectable. But if you don't, as I noted above, they really aren't. If I had been Shane, I would not have gone with the story.

My explanation and evaluation of the evidence shows that yours is superficial and ill-considered: very sloppy!

Which is not to say that his book is without value. It is, and I noted the valuable parts in my review. But this is not one of them.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/who_killed_bobby.html

Edited August 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

As you probably recall, I too was on the Chauncey Holt Panel at Lancer in 2000. I think the presentation is available for purchase from Lancer on DVD, but I don't know for sure since I never have seen it or ordered it. That said, I also knew Chauncey Holt for several decades. Well, let me re-phrase that: I first met Chauncey Holt in the very early 70's (about '71) and had contact with him for over a 2 or 3 year period (yes, my early teen years). Long story. However, I didn't see him again until about 1990, a year after I moved back to San Diego. I personally do not think the third tramp is Chauncey. I could be wrong, but that is my belief. Karyn and her (now late) mother knew this was my belief and we remain(ed) friends. However, I don't doubt the bulk of the remainder of his claims regarding providing Secret Service ID's and all the rest.

We discussed several "details" of his appearance on JFKresearch Forum 10 years ago. You asked me specifics about his height, which I confirmed--as they were accurate to the best of my knowledge. However, they alone do not convince me that he was or was not the third tramp--there is more.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk did a good job of responding to your critique, so I am not going to pursue that here. But I am puzzled by the first paragraph of your post, in which you wrote the following:

First, let me preface this with what Tony Summers said when this story first broke: photographic identification is very iffy. Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, I would rather stay away from it. I don't have to detail why this is so. The history of these "sightings" in the JFK case proves that i e. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Harrelson, Conein, MIlteer etc. This happens a lot with photos. And everyone knows that.

While I agree that the third of the tramps was not E. Howard Hunt (but Chauncey Marvin Holt), the second and tallest was indeed Charles Harrelson, Lucien Conein was the person photographed above JFK's head, Joseph Milteer was (to the best of my knowledge) also photographed in the crowd in Dealey Plaza, so I find this remark very odd. Regarding Conein, for example, I had an extended thread on The Deep Politics Forum about this, eliciting Jack's assistance in comparing the alleged Robert Adams as Lucien Conein, when their featured were quite different. Moreover, as I noted in that extended thread, Allan Eaglesham supported this purported identification with a plaque that was OBVIOUSLY faked. I really can't understand why anyone would be taken in. The "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" thread can still be accessed via http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2191 though it is unclear to me whether all of my posts about this issue remain. So I strongly disagree with your insinuation that that identification was mistaken.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&d=1261369572

In another post, "My concurrence with Lois Gibson, Houston Police Department", I explained why I am strongly of the opinion that Lois Gibson was correct in her identifications. If I could only locate it, I have a pamphlet from a missionary organization that shows a photo of Charles Rogers, who apparently served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and was involved in an heroic rescue. Those who do not know the book should read THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL, where I will do a search on amazon.com for more data about it to add here. Apparently, we all agree about Charles Harrelson, where Jack and I disagree, not only about the third tramp--whom he takes to be E. Howard Hunt--but also "Frenchie", where I should think some convergence of opinion ought to be possible.

When I organized a symposium at the Lancer Conference in 2000, as I recall, with Chauncey's daughter, Karyn, and his wife, who presented a portfolio of photographs from family albums and, in several cases, overlaid them with photos of the third tramp, Jerry Rose commented that, while he had been convinced in the past that it was E. Howard Hunt, he had now--based upon this presentation--changed his mind and agreed that it was Chauncey Holt. If Jack had been there, possibly he would have also changed his mind. Perhaps someone might be able to track it down and send a link for members to study? The book, THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL (1992), which is extremely interesting, is by John R. Craig and A. Rogers Phillip. I recommend it highly. So if you doubt these identifications, I think you are simply wrong.

I take it your interest in the photographic evidence equals your interest in the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. No one can grasp the case without encompassing the medical and the photographic evidence.

[Greg Burnham]

I guess I have a few additional comments that supplement what Monk has already posted. In my opinion, the CIA

was profoundly involved in the assassination, which the Chiefs appear to have supported, where Edward Lansdale

is the most likely candidate for having organized and executed the multiply-triangulated shooting sequence.

Jim,

We may or may not agree on this, but "to split hairs" (which is sometimes good for the sake of clarity), let me say, IMO:

"Operation Dallas" was carried out by several layers (at least 3) of gunmen and their spotters. The primary [out-sourced] team consisted of six individuals (three groups of two each--1 sniper and 1 spotter). The "second" team was similarly constructed, but unknown to the primary team. The ansillary team was placed in the event that the earlier attempts failed.

The "out-sourced" team was supplied by the CIA. No question. But, not for THAT "mission" as it turned out.

Lansdale was there to manage the cover-story, no matter the outcome. Did he have foreknowledge? No question about it! But, what did he think was going to take place that day? Huh? What?

Therein lies the key to this case...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for reminding me, Monk. Since I organized the session, I must have been laboring under the wrong impression. I certainly thought at the time that you were convinced of Chauncey's authenticity. I read his book manuscripts and watched his video series (made for his daughter), listened to his interview(s), and studied Lois Gibson's comparison. I remain convinced that Chauncey was the third tramp, which Karyn did a brilliant job illustrating with superpositions of family photographs over the Dealey Plaza ones. Alas, as I now seem to recall, Debra did not have the session taped. In retrospect, I believe it was a deliberate decision to make a unique event unavailable for the benefit of others, which is a shame.

Jim,

As you probably recall, I too was on the Chauncey Holt Panel at Lancer in 2000. I think the presentation is available for purchase from Lancer on DVD, but I don't know for sure since I never have seen it or ordered it. That said, I also knew Chauncey Holt for several decades. Well, let me re-phrase that: I first met Chauncey Holt in the very early 70's (about '71) and had contact with him for over a 2 or 3 year period (yes, my early teen years). Long story. However, I didn't see him again until about 1990, a year after I moved back to San Diego. I personally do not think the third tramp is Chauncey. I could be wrong, but that is my belief. Karyn and her (now late) mother knew this was my belief and we remain(ed) friends. However, I don't doubt the bulk of the remainder of his claims regarding providing Secret Service ID's and all the rest.

We discussed several "details" of his appearance on JFKresearch Forum 10 years ago. You asked me specifics about his height, which I confirmed--as they were accurate to the best of my knowledge. However, they alone do not convince me that he was or was not the third tramp--there is more.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk did a good job of responding to your critique, so I am not going to pursue that here. But I am puzzled by the first paragraph of your post, in which you wrote the following:

First, let me preface this with what Tony Summers said when this story first broke: photographic identification is very iffy. Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, I would rather stay away from it. I don't have to detail why this is so. The history of these "sightings" in the JFK case proves that i e. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Harrelson, Conein, MIlteer etc. This happens a lot with photos. And everyone knows that.

While I agree that the third of the tramps was not E. Howard Hunt (but Chauncey Marvin Holt), the second and tallest was indeed Charles Harrelson, Lucien Conein was the person photographed above JFK's head, Joseph Milteer was (to the best of my knowledge) also photographed in the crowd in Dealey Plaza, so I find this remark very odd. Regarding Conein, for example, I had an extended thread on The Deep Politics Forum about this, eliciting Jack's assistance in comparing the alleged Robert Adams as Lucien Conein, when their featured were quite different. Moreover, as I noted in that extended thread, Allan Eaglesham supported this purported identification with a plaque that was OBVIOUSLY faked. I really can't understand why anyone would be taken in. The "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" thread can still be accessed via http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2191 though it is unclear to me whether all of my posts about this issue remain. So I strongly disagree with your insinuation that that identification was mistaken.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&d=1261369572

In another post, "My concurrence with Lois Gibson, Houston Police Department", I explained why I am strongly of the opinion that Lois Gibson was correct in her identifications. If I could only locate it, I have a pamphlet from a missionary organization that shows a photo of Charles Rogers, who apparently served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and was involved in an heroic rescue. Those who do not know the book should read THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL, where I will do a search on amazon.com for more data about it to add here. Apparently, we all agree about Charles Harrelson, where Jack and I disagree, not only about the third tramp--whom he takes to be E. Howard Hunt--but also "Frenchie", where I should think some convergence of opinion ought to be possible.

When I organized a symposium at the Lancer Conference in 2000, as I recall, with Chauncey's daughter, Karyn, and his wife, who presented a portfolio of photographs from family albums and, in several cases, overlaid them with photos of the third tramp, Jerry Rose commented that, while he had been convinced in the past that it was E. Howard Hunt, he had now--based upon this presentation--changed his mind and agreed that it was Chauncey Holt. If Jack had been there, possibly he would have also changed his mind. Perhaps someone might be able to track it down and send a link for members to study? The book, THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL (1992), which is extremely interesting, is by John R. Craig and A. Rogers Phillip. I recommend it highly. So if you doubt these identifications, I think you are simply wrong.

I take it your interest in the photographic evidence equals your interest in the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. No one can grasp the case without encompassing the medical and the photographic evidence.

Edited August 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for reminding me, Monk. Since I organized the session, I must have been laboring under the wrong impression. I certainly thought at the time that you were convinced of Chauncey's authenticity. I read his book manuscripts and watched his video series (made for his daughter), listened to his interview(s), and studied Lois Gibson's comparison. I remain convinced that Chauncey was the third tramp, which Karyn did a brilliant job illustrating with superpositions of family photographs over the Dealey Plaza ones. Alas, as I now seem to recall, Debra did not have the session taped. In retrospect, I believe it was a deliberate decision to make a unique event unavailable for the benefit of others, which is a shame.

Jim,

I am convinced of Chauncey's authenticity! However, some things are not "black and white" especially when it comes to "operational" matters. I'm not comfortable posting about this. I'll call you over the weekend or next week.

As far as the taping of the session goes, are you kidding me? Wow. If true, that's very odd. I thought they taped everything, if for no other reason than to sell it!

Edited August 20, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

Jim knows that I side with Monk re Chauncey. He was all he claimed to be EXCEPT THE OLD MAN TRAMP.

Photoanalysis alone discredits him.

Monk knows that I disagree with him about the CIA involvement. It was not the agency itself, but agency

personnel led by Dulles, including Hunt, Phillips, Lansdale, and Conein, plus those loyal to Dulles.

Lois Gibson is overrated. "The Men on the Grassy Knoll" is disinformation.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim knows that I side with Monk re Chauncey. He was all he claimed to be EXCEPT THE OLD MAN TRAMP.

Photoanalysis alone discredits him.

Jack and I disagree about this, as is well known. I only wish he had been present at the symposium.

Monk knows that I disagree with him about the CIA involvement. It was not the agency itself, but agency

personnel led by Dulles, including Hunt, Phillips, Lansdale, and Conein, plus those loyal to Dulles.

I presume we all know it was not an "official" agency action, but that of an important group within it.

Lois Gibson is overrated. "The Men on the Grassy Knoll" is disinformation.

THE MAN ON THE GRASSY KNOLL is a very fine book and far from qualifying as "disinformation".

Jack

Edited August 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A few additional reflections:

Further, the LAPD identified the "Campbell" and "Johannides" (sic) figures as Roman and Owens. And Owens does not really look like Johannides (sic), just look at the picture in Shane's book yourself. Tim Kolaris was Johannides' (sic) nephew. When he was shown the photo he said, "That is not my uncle: I can tell you that. I don't know how anybody who ever knew him could say that is him." (Ibid p. 460) But they got family members who did ID them as Roman and Owens.

However, I can find no photograph of "Frank Owens" in Shane's book. He is only identified by members of the Roman family as looking like the other man at the Ambassador. The only citations to "Frank Owers" are on pages 473 and 475. What could be a more powerful indication of sloppy research than to cite a non-existent photo in this book? Where is it? I would like to see one.

DiEugenio also maintains:

Here is another problem I had with this whole scenario: in an operation like this, you would not have CIA higher ups in plain view of still cameras and motion picture cameras. It makes no sense, and this is what I told Talbot at the beginning. Further, Johannides (sic) was not an action officer. He is a desk guy who was in Athens at the time.

How can DiEugenio possibly know? The agency is ingenious in providing phony cover stories for its ops. That he is willing to take the word of the CIA that "Johannides (sic) was not an action officer. He was a desk guy who was in Athens at the time" tells me that he (DiEugenio) is extremely gullible and not cut out for serious JFK research.

And he also contends:

The whole thing is that the picture of Campbell at the Ambassador does NOT really look like him. Neither does the one of Johannides (sic). I mean just look at the picture of the latter in Shane's book, a good close up which he saves until the end of the discussion.

The final shots of Campbell and Joannides appears on page 452. DiEugenio never knew either of them, yet he is willing to discard Brad Ayers' expert identifications, even though he worked with them at JM/WAVE for a year and a half. This is about as irresponsible as it gets, substituting his own ignorant and unfounded opinion for that of Brad Ayers.

Edited August 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Bill,

How odd that your following post (time stamped 7:48am) includes my post (time stamped 7:07pm)? Is that because you edited this post at 10:55pm and then "copied and pasted" my post from way later? I think so. And that's OK by me--really, but I almost missed your reply to what I wrote as a result!

Quoting BK [quoting me]:

Monk: It is, in my opinion, unnecessary for a researcher to discount evidence. All evidence needs to be weighed and measured irrespective of how it impacts one's own pre-existing beliefs. So, dismissing "supporting" evidence because we have "other evidence" is not productive. That is partly the reason some CT researchers deny Zapruder film alteration or remain agnostic about it.

BK: Well, if we ever get Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act or a grand jury investigation of the assassination, Wayne Smith and Brad Ayers would certainly be high on the witness list, but not for their false identification of Joannides and Campbell at the Ambassador, but for what they know about David Atlee Phillips in Havana, and Phillips, Campbell, Joannides, Shackley, Morales, Fernandez and Spfora at JMWAVE and their association with Dealey Plaza.

Of course, both Smith and Ayers have been compromised by the whole Ambassador schmeile, which I think was a set up to discredit them and others in the first place, and Morley and Talbott, two of the most respected journalists on this case, were also almost dragged into the gutter with them but pulled themselves out before they got too muddy.

Their mission in the first place, the assignment from the mainstream media publication in NYC, was misdirected, and should not have been to uncover Joannides, Campbell and Morales at the Ambassador, as Shane and the photos seemed to indicate to some people who knew them, their assignment should have been to uncover what Joannides, Campbell and Morales were doing at JMWAVE and how it is connected to Dealey Plaza - THAT is the story no one now is even looking into because everybody got sidetracked to the Ambassador.

Also, the discussion on the Tramps and the controversary over their photo ID illustrates how difficult it is to base an identification of anyone on photographs. BYW, I interviewed Holt on the record on tape at his home in San Diego in 1992 and wrote an article for Jerry Rose's Fourth Decade - Meet Chauncey Holt, that may have influenced Rose's thinking on the matter.

But that discussion should be held under the appropriate threads that have been started previously - and not here - a thread that should be dedicated to Gordon Campbell, who he was, what became of him, and how his operations at JMWAVE need to be understood in order to figure out what happened at Dealey Plaza.

What happened to him, the subject of this thread? Did he sail off into the sunset with his bikini clad wife and martinis?

Bill Kelly

I am truly confused by your post...