Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Chris Bennett

Larry Hancock: Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination

Recommended Posts

In his latest book, 'Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination', Larry Hancock goes beyond the excellent research and analysis in the three editions of 'Someone Would Have Talked', to (from the preface of the book) engage in a historical study of how political assassination evolved inside of the CIA, and provide a fuller picture of the culture and conditions which could allow an act to be instigated by CIA personnel and then not be exposed by Agency investigation.

[Evidently, the book was released early on Kindle at the end of 2011. And while this provides us an early opportunity to sample the contents, it's obvious from the spelling and grammar that it's still a "work in progress". My understanding is that the full paperback release is forthcoming. So I will focus on the content and not the style.]

I am almost done reading Nexus, and it has been a fascinating book. Larry continues to synthesize available research while breaking new ground and asking important questions.

Larry, I had a few questions for you from my notes so far.

1. On Location 1660 (of the Kindle book), you noted that "We can regard this (William Harvey's ZR/RIFLE notes and the Agency's previous activities) as a lesson learned in being able to detect the hand of CIA involvement in political murders. No fingerprints would be left, no employees would be present, surrogates would be involved and any obvious leads or evidence would point to the enemy, the Russians or their fellow travelers."

Analyzing the films and photos of Dealey Plaza for "familiar faces" has become an admittedly fascinating cottage industry. Do you believe that anyone involved with the CIA would have put themselves into such a vulnerable position as to be photographed and/or spotted on the scene? It's tempting to believe that this was such a big operation that people wanted to be around to send JFK off. But given your views in the book, wouldn't the people involved be totally unrecognizable, especially those standing "in the clear" for spotting or communications purposes?

2. On Location 1687, you wrote that "Unfortunately both Lansdale's "out of the box" psychological warfare plans and his generation of minutely detailed "task lists" and "action schedules" would lead to his being viewed with total distain by participants from virtually all the agencies involved."

From Location 1777: "Former JMWAVE personnel cite the fact that Lansdale "drove Harvey up the wall"; he would demand detailed operational schedules months in advance, leaving to room (sic) to adjust for variables such as personnel, weather, conditions of the beaches, etc."

I have always felt that Lansdale was like Shackley in that both were viewed by the "real" operators more as pencil pushers who were too concerned with record-keeping and politics. And I cannot imagine either being given real access to an assassination plot that was going to exist through oral communication in person and over the phone. With apparently no written records. Did you feel that either were involved or even knew about the plot?

And going back to the question of "familiar faces in Dealey Plaza", one of the most common discussions is that of Prouty's comment about seeing Lansdale from the back as he supposedly passed the Three Tramps. Doesn't the above analysis put a fork in that possibility? If Lansdale couldn't be trusted with the plot, what in the world was he doing given hidden signals on camera to someone?

3. On Location 2565, you wrote that "If for some strange reason, (Lisa) Howard had not been on Angleton's radar before the Helms memo, she certainly would have been by the middle of May."

Given that you state that the Lisa Howard visits with Fidel Castro were setting up for a reproachment between Castro and JFK, do you feel that Angleton was using William Harvey to "prime the pump" so to speak with Morales and Rosselli? In other words, was Angleton feeding very explosive information down to people who would A: help communicate it to the wider anti-Castro Cuban movement and B: potentially put together a plot to attack JFK in some way?

James Jesus Angleton certainly saw a lot from his vantage point as head of C/I for the CIA and his connections to the FBI. Do you view him more as an observer or a manipulator vis-a-vis the JFK plot?

I'm sure more questions will come up as I finish and mull over your excellent book. My main thoughts are around the timing involved around the JFK-Castro reproachment and when assets starting coming into place to organize the assassination plot and set Oswald up as a patsy.

Your thoughts, Larry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CHRIS, THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS, I'M USING CAPS SO I CAN INSERT COMMENTS BELOW AND HAVE THEM STAND OUT...

In his latest book, 'Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination', Larry Hancock goes beyond the excellent research and analysis in the three editions of 'Someone Would Have Talked', to (from the preface of the book) engage in a historical study of how political assassination evolved inside of the CIA, and provide a fuller picture of the culture and conditions which could allow an act to be instigated by CIA personnel and then not be exposed by Agency investigation.

[Evidently, the book was released early on Kindle at the end of 2011. And while this provides us an early opportunity to sample the contents, it's obvious from the spelling and grammar that it's still a "work in progress". My understanding is that the full paperback release is forthcoming. So I will focus on the content and not the style.]

I am almost done reading Nexus, and it has been a fascinating book. Larry continues to synthesize available research while breaking new ground and asking important questions.

Larry, I had a few questions for you from my notes so far.

1. On Location 1660 (of the Kindle book), you noted that "We can regard this (William Harvey's ZR/RIFLE notes and the Agency's previous activities) as a lesson learned in being able to detect the hand of CIA involvement in political murders. No fingerprints would be left, no employees would be present, surrogates would be involved and any obvious leads or evidence would point to the enemy, the Russians or their fellow travelers."

Analyzing the films and photos of Dealey Plaza for "familiar faces" has become an admittedly fascinating cottage industry. Do you believe that anyone involved with the CIA would have put themselves into such a vulnerable position as to be photographed and/or spotted on the scene? It's tempting to believe that this was such a big operation that people wanted to be around to send JFK off. But given your views in the book, wouldn't the people involved be totally unrecognizable, especially those standing "in the clear" for spotting or communications purposes?

BASED ON ALL THE HISTORY I CAN FIND, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY TO ANY COVERT OP FOR KNOWN CIA OFFICERS TO PUT THEMSELVES

IN A POSITION OF VISIBILITY. THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE FIELD BUT EITHER CONCEALED OR STRICTLY IN COMMUNICATION. HAVING SAID THAT, THERE

ARE A FEW OTHER POSSIBILITIES - FIRST, CERTAIN OF THE OPERATIONS/PARAMILITARY OFFICERS (SUCH AS SAY, RIP ROBERTSON) WERE KNOWN TO FAIRLY ROUTINELY

DISOBEY STANDING ORDERS...GOING ASHORE WITH THE EXILES AT THE BAY OF PIGS WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE, MACHINE GUNNING CASTRO'S BEACH

HOUSE DURING A BOAT MISSION, ETC. IN ADDITION, ITS VERY LIKELY THE ACTUAL TACTICAL TEAM IN DALLAS WERE SURROGATES, EXILES FROM

THE CASTRO SNIPER TEAM, AND EVEN "FELLOW TRAVELERS", INDIVIDUALS WITH NO OFFICIAL CONNECTION AT ALL THE THE CIA WHO HAD

BEEN INVOLVED IN ANTI CASTRO ACTIVITIES WELL BEYOND CONTROL OF THE AGENCY. AND SINCE SOME OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS TRULY AND DEEPLY

HATED JFK IT IS POSSIBLE THEY WERE WILLING TO BE VERY MUCH "UP CLOSE". I DON'T THINK VIDAL OR HARGRAVES WOULD HAVE HESITATED

IN THE LEAST TO BE ON ELM STREET NOR WOULD ANYONE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONNECT THEM TO THE CIA. IF IDENTIFIED IT WOULD SIMPLY

HAVE BEEN ANOTHER SET OF "NUTS", JUST NOT LONE ONES.

2. On Location 1687, you wrote that "Unfortunately both Lansdale's "out of the box" psychological warfare plans and his generation of minutely detailed "task lists" and "action schedules" would lead to his being viewed with total distain by participants from virtually all the agencies involved."

From Location 1777: "Former JMWAVE personnel cite the fact that Lansdale "drove Harvey up the wall"; he would demand detailed operational schedules months in advance, leaving to room (sic) to adjust for variables such as personnel, weather, conditions of the beaches, etc."

I have always felt that Lansdale was like Shackley in that both were viewed by the "real" operators more as pencil pushers who were too concerned with record-keeping and politics. And I cannot imagine either being given real access to an assassination plot that was going to exist through oral communication in person and over the phone. With apparently no written records. Did you feel that either were involved or even knew about the plot?

NOT ONLY WERE NEITHER FIELD OPERATIONS GUYS BUT NEITHER WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUSTED BY MEMBERS OF THE TACTICAL TEAM - YOU DON'T

SEND EXECUTIVES INTO A COVERT OP FOR MANY REASONS AND ONE OF THEM IS TRUST. BY 1963 JMWAVE AND THE CIA IN GENERALLY (OTHER THAN

FOR A VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS LIKE MORALES, ROBERTSON, LYNCH ETC, THE PARAMILITARIES) WAS JUST NOT TRUSTED BY MOST OF THE MORE

ACTIVIST EXILES.

And going back to the question of "familiar faces in Dealey Plaza", one of the most common discussions is that of Prouty's comment about seeing Lansdale from the back as he supposedly passed the Three Tramps. Doesn't the above analysis put a fork in that possibility? If Lansdale couldn't be trusted with the plot, what in the world was he doing given hidden signals on camera to someone?

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COULD PUT LANSDALE IN DALLAS; HE TRULY HAD BEEN CLOSE THE THE KENNEDY'S AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY BOTH

BROTHERS. ITS POSSIBLE THAT IF RFK HAD BEEN GIVEN INFORMATION TO MAKE HIM WARY OF A EXILES PREPARING TO ACT AGAINST HIS BROTHER

PERHAPS LANSDALE WAS ASKED TO INVESTIGATE. PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT ITS NOT ONLY A WILD SCENARIO BUT THAT IT ASSUMES

LANSDALE WOULD HAVE VISUALLY RECOGNIZED TACTICAL PERSONNEL - AND HE HAD AGAIN BEEN AN EXECUTIVE. BEATS ME. ANOTHER POINT IS

THAT SUPPOSEDLY PROUTY'S ID WAS LARGELY BASED ON LANSDALE'S HAND - I'VE SEEN SOME RECENT PHOTO ANALYSIS OF THAT WHICH SUGGESTS

THE STRANGE APPEARANCE IS MORE OF AN OPTICAL ILLUSION BASED ON POSITIONING OF THE HAND. ITS AN OPEN ISSUE TO ME BUT I WOULD SUGGEST

ANYBODY PROMOTING THE IDEA READ PROUTY'S EXTENSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THE ARRB AS BACKGROUND TO EVALUATING HIS CONSPIRACY OBSERVATIONS.

3. On Location 2565, you wrote that "If for some strange reason, (Lisa) Howard had not been on Angleton's radar before the Helms memo, she certainly would have been by the middle of May."

Given that you state that the Lisa Howard visits with Fidel Castro were setting up for a reproachment between Castro and JFK, do you feel that Angleton was using William Harvey to "prime the pump" so to speak with Morales and Rosselli? In other words, was Angleton feeding very explosive information down to people who would A: help communicate it to the wider anti-Castro Cuban movement and B: potentially put together a plot to attack JFK in some way?

ABSOLUTELY ANGLETON WAS "PRIMING THE PUMP", GOOD CHOICE OF WORDS. PROBLEM IS THAT IS THE SORT OF THING ANGLETON DID ALL THE TIME ON LOTS

OF SUBJECTS AND PEOPLE. APPARENTLY HE SIMPLY WALKED IN TO VISIT HIS FEW CLOSE, HIGH RANKING FRIENDS AND SHARED HIS WORRIES

AND FEARS (OF WHICH HE HAD A GREAT MANY). THEN IT WAS LEFT TO THEM TO ACT. IN THIS CASE HOWEVER I SUSPECT HE KNEW ENOUGH ABOUT

HARVEY AND CUBAN AFFAIRS TO BE RELATIVELY CERTAIN HARVEY WOULD PASS IT ON TO SOMEBODY WHO WOULD REACT TO IT.

James Jesus Angleton certainly saw a lot from his vantage point as head of C/I for the CIA and his connections to the FBI. Do you view him more as an observer or a manipulator vis-a-vis the JFK plot?

I WOULD THINK AS A MANIPULATOR, WE HAVE TO RECALL THAT ANGLETON FELT A NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL AND EVEN US LEADERS WERE EITHER

COMMUNISTS OR ACTIVE COMMUNIST AGENTS - AND NONE OF THEM GOT ELIMINATED (KISSENGER BEING ONE). ANGLETON WAS A SUPREME "POT

STIRRER", FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN HE HAD TO CONNECT WITH PEOPLE WHO WOULD ACTUALLY ACT ON HIS INFORMATION - AND IN THE CASE

OF JFK I SUSPECT THAT IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

I'm sure more questions will come up as I finish and mull over your excellent book. My main thoughts are around the timing involved around the JFK-Castro reproachment and when assets starting coming into place to organize the assassination plot and set Oswald up as a patsy.

MY BEST SHOT ON THAT IS THE CHRONOLOGY AT THE END OF NEXUS, ITS WORTH MORE SOLID STUDY THOUGH. I'M HAPPY TO CHAT HERE OR VIA

EMAIL AT larryjoe@westok.net

-- Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note that Larry's new book Nexus is now out in paperback. Available on Amazon and at JFK Lancer.

I'm on my second reading of the book, and it's truly fascinating. As Larry explained to me, Someone Would Have Talked was about the JFK assassination from the inside out. Nexus is about the assassination from the outside in.

A must-read in my opinion. Anyone else been reading it? Would love to discuss!

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CHRIS, THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS, I'M USING CAPS SO I CAN INSERT COMMENTS BELOW AND HAVE THEM STAND OUT...

In his latest book, 'Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination', Larry Hancock goes beyond the excellent research and analysis in the three editions of 'Someone Would Have Talked', to (from the preface of the book) engage in a historical study of how political assassination evolved inside of the CIA, and provide a fuller picture of the culture and conditions which could allow an act to be instigated by CIA personnel and then not be exposed by Agency investigation.

[Evidently, the book was released early on Kindle at the end of 2011. And while this provides us an early opportunity to sample the contents, it's obvious from the spelling and grammar that it's still a "work in progress". My understanding is that the full paperback release is forthcoming. So I will focus on the content and not the style.]

I am almost done reading Nexus, and it has been a fascinating book. Larry continues to synthesize available research while breaking new ground and asking important questions.

Larry, I had a few questions for you from my notes so far.

1. On Location 1660 (of the Kindle book), you noted that "We can regard this (William Harvey's ZR/RIFLE notes and the Agency's previous activities) as a lesson learned in being able to detect the hand of CIA involvement in political murders. No fingerprints would be left, no employees would be present, surrogates would be involved and any obvious leads or evidence would point to the enemy, the Russians or their fellow travelers."

Analyzing the films and photos of Dealey Plaza for "familiar faces" has become an admittedly fascinating cottage industry. Do you believe that anyone involved with the CIA would have put themselves into such a vulnerable position as to be photographed and/or spotted on the scene? It's tempting to believe that this was such a big operation that people wanted to be around to send JFK off. But given your views in the book, wouldn't the people involved be totally unrecognizable, especially those standing "in the clear" for spotting or communications purposes?

BASED ON ALL THE HISTORY I CAN FIND, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY TO ANY COVERT OP FOR KNOWN CIA OFFICERS TO PUT THEMSELVES

IN A POSITION OF VISIBILITY. THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE FIELD BUT EITHER CONCEALED OR STRICTLY IN COMMUNICATION. HAVING SAID THAT, THERE

ARE A FEW OTHER POSSIBILITIES - FIRST, CERTAIN OF THE OPERATIONS/PARAMILITARY OFFICERS (SUCH AS SAY, RIP ROBERTSON) WERE KNOWN TO FAIRLY ROUTINELY

DISOBEY STANDING ORDERS...GOING ASHORE WITH THE EXILES AT THE BAY OF PIGS WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE, MACHINE GUNNING CASTRO'S BEACH

HOUSE DURING A BOAT MISSION, ETC. IN ADDITION, ITS VERY LIKELY THE ACTUAL TACTICAL TEAM IN DALLAS WERE SURROGATES, EXILES FROM

THE CASTRO SNIPER TEAM, AND EVEN "FELLOW TRAVELERS", INDIVIDUALS WITH NO OFFICIAL CONNECTION AT ALL THE THE CIA WHO HAD

BEEN INVOLVED IN ANTI CASTRO ACTIVITIES WELL BEYOND CONTROL OF THE AGENCY. AND SINCE SOME OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS TRULY AND DEEPLY

HATED JFK IT IS POSSIBLE THEY WERE WILLING TO BE VERY MUCH "UP CLOSE". I DON'T THINK VIDAL OR HARGRAVES WOULD HAVE HESITATED

IN THE LEAST TO BE ON ELM STREET NOR WOULD ANYONE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONNECT THEM TO THE CIA. IF IDENTIFIED IT WOULD SIMPLY

HAVE BEEN ANOTHER SET OF "NUTS", JUST NOT LONE ONES.

2. On Location 1687, you wrote that "Unfortunately both Lansdale's "out of the box" psychological warfare plans and his generation of minutely detailed "task lists" and "action schedules" would lead to his being viewed with total distain by participants from virtually all the agencies involved."

From Location 1777: "Former JMWAVE personnel cite the fact that Lansdale "drove Harvey up the wall"; he would demand detailed operational schedules months in advance, leaving to room (sic) to adjust for variables such as personnel, weather, conditions of the beaches, etc."

I have always felt that Lansdale was like Shackley in that both were viewed by the "real" operators more as pencil pushers who were too concerned with record-keeping and politics. And I cannot imagine either being given real access to an assassination plot that was going to exist through oral communication in person and over the phone. With apparently no written records. Did you feel that either were involved or even knew about the plot?

NOT ONLY WERE NEITHER FIELD OPERATIONS GUYS BUT NEITHER WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUSTED BY MEMBERS OF THE TACTICAL TEAM - YOU DON'T

SEND EXECUTIVES INTO A COVERT OP FOR MANY REASONS AND ONE OF THEM IS TRUST. BY 1963 JMWAVE AND THE CIA IN GENERALLY (OTHER THAN

FOR A VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS LIKE MORALES, ROBERTSON, LYNCH ETC, THE PARAMILITARIES) WAS JUST NOT TRUSTED BY MOST OF THE MORE

ACTIVIST EXILES.

And going back to the question of "familiar faces in Dealey Plaza", one of the most common discussions is that of Prouty's comment about seeing Lansdale from the back as he supposedly passed the Three Tramps. Doesn't the above analysis put a fork in that possibility? If Lansdale couldn't be trusted with the plot, what in the world was he doing given hidden signals on camera to someone?

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COULD PUT LANSDALE IN DALLAS; HE TRULY HAD BEEN CLOSE THE THE KENNEDY'S AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY BOTH

BROTHERS. ITS POSSIBLE THAT IF RFK HAD BEEN GIVEN INFORMATION TO MAKE HIM WARY OF A EXILES PREPARING TO ACT AGAINST HIS BROTHER

PERHAPS LANSDALE WAS ASKED TO INVESTIGATE. PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT ITS NOT ONLY A WILD SCENARIO BUT THAT IT ASSUMES

LANSDALE WOULD HAVE VISUALLY RECOGNIZED TACTICAL PERSONNEL - AND HE HAD AGAIN BEEN AN EXECUTIVE. BEATS ME. ANOTHER POINT IS

THAT SUPPOSEDLY PROUTY'S ID WAS LARGELY BASED ON LANSDALE'S HAND - I'VE SEEN SOME RECENT PHOTO ANALYSIS OF THAT WHICH SUGGESTS

THE STRANGE APPEARANCE IS MORE OF AN OPTICAL ILLUSION BASED ON POSITIONING OF THE HAND. ITS AN OPEN ISSUE TO ME BUT I WOULD SUGGEST

ANYBODY PROMOTING THE IDEA READ PROUTY'S EXTENSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THE ARRB AS BACKGROUND TO EVALUATING HIS CONSPIRACY OBSERVATIONS.

3. On Location 2565, you wrote that "If for some strange reason, (Lisa) Howard had not been on Angleton's radar before the Helms memo, she certainly would have been by the middle of May."

Given that you state that the Lisa Howard visits with Fidel Castro were setting up for a reproachment between Castro and JFK, do you feel that Angleton was using William Harvey to "prime the pump" so to speak with Morales and Rosselli? In other words, was Angleton feeding very explosive information down to people who would A: help communicate it to the wider anti-Castro Cuban movement and B: potentially put together a plot to attack JFK in some way?

ABSOLUTELY ANGLETON WAS "PRIMING THE PUMP", GOOD CHOICE OF WORDS. PROBLEM IS THAT IS THE SORT OF THING ANGLETON DID ALL THE TIME ON LOTS

OF SUBJECTS AND PEOPLE. APPARENTLY HE SIMPLY WALKED IN TO VISIT HIS FEW CLOSE, HIGH RANKING FRIENDS AND SHARED HIS WORRIES

AND FEARS (OF WHICH HE HAD A GREAT MANY). THEN IT WAS LEFT TO THEM TO ACT. IN THIS CASE HOWEVER I SUSPECT HE KNEW ENOUGH ABOUT

HARVEY AND CUBAN AFFAIRS TO BE RELATIVELY CERTAIN HARVEY WOULD PASS IT ON TO SOMEBODY WHO WOULD REACT TO IT.

James Jesus Angleton certainly saw a lot from his vantage point as head of C/I for the CIA and his connections to the FBI. Do you view him more as an observer or a manipulator vis-a-vis the JFK plot?

I WOULD THINK AS A MANIPULATOR, WE HAVE TO RECALL THAT ANGLETON FELT A NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL AND EVEN US LEADERS WERE EITHER

COMMUNISTS OR ACTIVE COMMUNIST AGENTS - AND NONE OF THEM GOT ELIMINATED (KISSENGER BEING ONE). ANGLETON WAS A SUPREME "POT

STIRRER", FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN HE HAD TO CONNECT WITH PEOPLE WHO WOULD ACTUALLY ACT ON HIS INFORMATION - AND IN THE CASE

OF JFK I SUSPECT THAT IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

I'm sure more questions will come up as I finish and mull over your excellent book. My main thoughts are around the timing involved around the JFK-Castro reproachment and when assets starting coming into place to organize the assassination plot and set Oswald up as a patsy.

MY BEST SHOT ON THAT IS THE CHRONOLOGY AT THE END OF NEXUS, ITS WORTH MORE SOLID STUDY THOUGH. I'M HAPPY TO CHAT HERE OR VIA

EMAIL AT larryjoe@westok.net

-- Larry

bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI PAUL, I’M PUTTING MY RESPONSE IN CAPS JUST SO IT STANDS OUT, MY EMAIL EDITOR IS A BIT LIMITED IN OPTIONS

Larry, I had a few questions for you from my notes so far.

1. On Location 1660 (of the Kindle book), you noted that "We can regard this (William Harvey's ZR/RIFLE notes and the Agency's previous activities) as a lesson learned in being able to detect the hand of CIA involvement in political murders. No fingerprints would be left, no employees would be present, surrogates would be involved and any obvious leads or evidence would point to the enemy, the Russians or their fellow travelers."

Analyzing the films and photos of Dealey Plaza for "familiar faces" has become an admittedly fascinating cottage industry. Do you believe that anyone involved with the CIA would have put themselves into such a vulnerable position as to be photographed and/or spotted on the scene? It's tempting to believe that this was such a big operation that people wanted to be around to send JFK off. But given your views in the book, wouldn't the people involved be totally unrecognizable, especially those standing "in the clear" for spotting or communications purposes?

IN TERMS OF THE TRUE CIA PARAMILITARY PROFESSIONALS, THE LAST PLACE I WOULD NORMALLY EXPECT TO FIND THEM WOULD BE STANDING ON THE STREE WATCHING – MANY REASONS FOR THAT BUT ONE IS THAT I SUSPECT THEY HAD BACKUP PLANS AND FALL BACK ATTACK POINTS – MUCH AS VECIANA DESCRIBES IN THE ABORTIVE CASTRO ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT HE WAS INVOLVED WITH LATER IN LATIN AMERICA. WE REALLY NEED TO GIVE THESE FELLOWS THE CREDIT THEIR EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE DESERVES. MY ONE CAVEAT ON THAT IS THAT IT IS JUST POSSIBLE THAT ONE OR TWO OF THEM HATED JFK TO AN EXTENT THAT IT MIGHT HAVE LED THEM TO DO SOMETHING THEY OTHERWISE WOULD NOT DO – A POSSIBLE EXAMPLE WOULD BE RIP ROBERTSON WHO WAS KNOWN FOR BEING WILLING TO GO OVER THE TOP.

ANYONE WHO LITERALLY HAD TO BE IN AN EXPOSED POSITION WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO NOT ONLY COULD NOT BE TIED TO AGENCY CONTACTS BUT WITH A REPUTATION FOR ACTUALLY BEING HOSTILE AND INDEPENDENT FROM THE AGENCY…AND OF COURSE ALSO EXCEPTIONALLY KNOWN FOR RISK TAKING…WHICH OF COURSE BRINGS HARGRAVES AND VIDAL TO MIND.

2. On Location 1687, you wrote that "Unfortunately both Lansdale's "out of the box" psychological warfare plans and his generation of minutely detailed "task lists" and "action schedules" would lead to his being viewed with total distain by participants from virtually all the agencies involved."

From Location 1777: "Former JMWAVE personnel cite the fact that Lansdale "drove Harvey up the wall"; he would demand detailed operational schedules months in advance, leaving to room (sic) to adjust for variables such as personnel, weather, conditions of the beaches, etc."

I have always felt that Lansdale was like Shackley in that both were viewed by the "real" operators more as pencil pushers who were too concerned with record-keeping and politics. And I cannot imagine either being given real access to an assassination plot that was going to exist through oral communication in person and over the phone. With apparently no written records. Did you feel that either were involved or even knew about the plot?

I AGREE WITH YOU PAUL, NEITHER HAD THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY TO ESTABLISH ANY REAL CONFIDENCE WITH THE TRUE PARAMILITARY FOLKS – ESPECIALLY SHACKLEY. NO, I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO CAME UP WITH THE ACTUAL TACTICAL PLAN AND DROVE THE ATTACK WERE JUST THE SORT OF GUYS YOU WOULD EXPECT – GUYS THAT HAD DONE THAT SORT OF THING ROUTINELY BEFORE, KNEW HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TRUSTED EACH OTHER IMPLICITLY IN AN ACTUAL COMBAT ENVIRONMENT.

And going back to the question of "familiar faces in Dealey Plaza", one of the most common discussions is that of Prouty's comment about seeing Lansdale from the back as he supposedly passed the Three Tramps. Doesn't the above analysis put a fork in that possibility? If Lansdale couldn't be trusted with the plot, what in the world was he doing given hidden signals on camera to someone?

THIS GETS INTO THE MOST DICY PART OF ‘FACES IN DP” SINCE YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE THE GUYS FACE. FRANKLY I THINK ITS JUST SPECULATION (I KNOW THAT DOESN’T WIN ME A LOT OF FRIENDS). ANYWAY, READ PROUTY’S EXTENSIVE ARRB INTERVIEW AND THEN PONDER THE INDETIFICATION IN TERMS OF THAT DIALOG.

3. On Location 2565, you wrote that "If for some strange reason, (Lisa) Howard had not been on Angleton's radar before the Helms memo, she certainly would have been by the middle of May."

Given that you state that the Lisa Howard visits with Fidel Castro were setting up for a reproachment between Castro and JFK, do you feel that Angleton was using William Harvey to "prime the pump" so to speak with Morales and Rosselli? In other words, was Angleton feeding very explosive information down to people who would A: help communicate it to the wider anti-Castro Cuban movement and B: potentially put together a plot to attack JFK in some way?

YES ON ALL POINTS BUT WITH JUST A LITTLE CAVEAT. I DEFNITELY THINK ANGLETON WENT TO HARVEY TO WORRY HIM, INSTIGATE HIM, ETC. IN OTHER WORDS HE WENT TO HARVEY BECAUSE HE KNEW HARVEY WAS THE KIND OF GUY TO PERSONALLY MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN AND HAD THE RIGHT INTERNAL (AND EXTERNAL) CONACTS TO DO SO. BUT ANGLETON’S GENERAL MO WAS LIMITED TO LARGELY JUST THAT – GO INTO HELMS OFFICE OR PREVIOUSLY DULLES OFFICE AND JUST SIT THERE AND RAISE ISSUES, EXPRESS WORRIES, TALK ABOUT SOMEBODY DOING SOMETHING…AND THEN WALK OFF. CREATING FEAR, WORRY AND DISCONTENT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN INTEGRAL TO HIS PERSONALITY. HOWEVER, AFTTER DUMPING THE ISSUE I CAN ALSO SEE HIM JUST WALKING AWAY AND LETTING THINGS JELL. THAT WAS HIS STYLE AS WELL. WHEN HE SAID HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHO STRUCK JOHN IT WAS MOST LIKELY THE LITERAL TRUTH.

James Jesus Angleton certainly saw a lot from his vantage point as head of C/I for the CIA and his connections to the FBI. Do you view him more as an observer or a manipulator vis-a-vis the JFK plot?

DEFINITELY AS A MANIPULATOR – BUT ALSO VERY DEFINITELY A KEY FIGURE IN THE CIA STONEWALLING AFTER THE FACT. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND HE WAS USED TO REPLACE WHITTEN TO SUPPRESS ANYTHING DANGEROUS TO THE AGENCY THAT MIGHT SURFACE DURING THE INQUIRY. PLUS THE FACT THAT WITH ANGLETON’S OVERWHEALMING OBSESSION WITH THE KGB MASTER PLAN, IN SOME SENSE HE WOULD BE THE IDEAL GUY TO POINT FIGURES AT CASTRO AND THE SOVIETS AFTER THE FACT…WHICH OF COUSE HE DID.

I'm sure more questions will come up as I finish and mull over your excellent book. My main thoughts are around the timing involved around the JFK-Castro reproachment and when assets starting coming into place to organize the assassination plot and set Oswald up as a patsy.

TIMING IS REALLY A MAJOR INDICATIOR, ONE CLUE IN THE DOCUMENTS IS THAT THE AGENCY ITSELF (DIECTOR, MEXICO CITY, JM/WAVE-AMOTS) DON’T REALLY PAY MUCH ATTENTON TO THE FOLKS INVOLVED IN THE CASTRO/KENNEDY BACK CHANNEL DURING MUCH OF 1963…AND THEY KNEW IT WAS IN PLAY. YET SUDDENLY, IN THE FALL, THEY START GENERATING SOME SERIOUS PAPERWORK ON THE CUBAN SIDE. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT EVERYBODY REALIZED JFK COULD MOVE QUICKLY AND THAT THEY WERE IN A REAL TIME CRUCH TO DEAL WITH IT. AND OF COURSE FOR THE PLOTTERS, THAT MEANT THAT COME OCTOBER, THE GAME WAS NOT ONLY ON FOR REAL BUT THERE WAS A SHORT WINDOW FOR ACTION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Larry,

Those were actually my previous questions that you were kind enough to answer before. I believe Paul was just surfacing the topic again.

But I am glad to see that you are consistent in your answers <grin>

But on this subject, I am currently reading 'Harvey and Lee' and thinking about it vis-a-via SWHT and Nexus. I cannot say I am convinced yet by the "two completely different Oswalds who were combined around the age of 13"? But the circumstantial evidence does start to pile up, and the research looks strong.

Larry, in our correspondence together, you have noted more than once that Oswald could have been doubled pretty easily and at a late stage when the prep for the assassination was already underway. Where do you sit on the subject of "Oswald as long-term CIA/ONI/FBI mole/dangle/etc?"

Angleton certainly seemed perfectly placed to throw Oswald under the "patsy" bus, even if he wasn't the one to originally dangle him to the Soviets or whomever. I don't want to digress from Nexus, but I feel it's a relevant connection to your work.

Best,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI CHRIS, AS WEI PAUL I WILL PUT COMMENTS IN CAPS SO THEY CAN BE EASILY LOCATED…

But on this subject, I am currently reading 'Harvey and Lee' and thinking about it vis-a-via SWHT

and Nexus. I cannot say I am convinced yet by the "two completely different Oswalds who were combined

around the age of 13"? But the circumstantial evidence does start to pile up, and the research looks strong.

CHRIS, CERTAINLY I’M AN ADMIRER OF JOHN’S RESEARCH AND THERE IS A TON OF GOOD, RELEVANT MATERIAL IN THE BOOK.

I THINK WERE WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIONS IS TIEING TOO MANY THREADS TOGETHER OR INDEED TIEING THEM ALL TO DALLAS.

I’M ALSO TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT SOME OF WHAT I READ DOESN’T SEEM TO FIT WITH WHAT I’VE READ ABOUT INTELLIGENCE

PRACTICE (WHICH MAY JUST MEAN I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH). FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WANT TO PUT A TRULY DEEP, LONG TERM AGENT

IN PLACE YOU EITHER HAVE TO RECRUING THEM “IN COUNTRY” VERY EARLY AND TRY TO NURTURE THEIR DEVELOPMENT INTO SOME

POSITION THAT IS GOING TO GET YOU GREAT INTELLIGENCE OR AT LEAST INFLUENCE LATER ON. ANOTHER OPTION, THE ONE JOHN

DISCUSSES WOULD BE TO TAKE A YOUNG, NATIVE LANGUAGE SPEAKER, AND MOVE THEM IN COUNTRY, HELP THEIR CAREER AND AGAIN,

PUT THEM IN A PLACE WHERE THEY WILL GENERATE SOME VALUE (YOU ALSO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEIR POLITICAL

ALLEGIANCE – USUALLY WITH DEEP AGENTS IN THE US OR BRITAIN IT WAS DEEP IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS OR SOME HEAVY CASH

THAT DID IT). ANYWAY WE HAVE NUMEROUS MODELS FOR THAT SORT OF DEEP AGENT GAME – BUT NONE OF THEM REALLY RELATE

TO OSWALD IN RUSSIA. AFTER ALL, IF YOU WANT A GUY TO PLAY DEFECTOR, THEN HE NEEDS TO BE A STRAIGHT UP NATIVE

AMERICAN WHO PITCHES AN IDEOLOGICAL CONVERSTION – OR PERHAPS A TECHNICAL SPECIALIST WHO GOES OVER AND IS

HONEY TRAPPED AND PLAYS ALONG. WE HAVE EXAMPLES THERE TOO. WHAT WE DON’T HAVE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT REALLY LOOKS

LIKE OSWALD. WITH HARVEY AND LEE YOU HAVE ONE NATIVE LANGUATE SPEAKER WHO COULD PLAY A RUSSIAN NATIONAL BUT YOU

DON’T USE HIM IN THAT ROLE AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER WHO IS AN OBVIOUS AMERICAN……AND YOU USE HIM HOW?

SO, LONG WINDED ANSWER TO SAYING I BELIVE THERE COULD WELL HAVE BEEN (AND ACTUALLY WERE) SPY GAMES BEING

PLAYED AROUND TWO OR EVEN MORE “OSWALD’S” OSWALD AS A “CHARACTER” CAN BE PLAYED BY MANY PEOPLE IN MANY

LOCATIONS, SOME DON’T EVEN HAVE TO LOOK LIKE HIM. AGENCY TRADECRAFT CALLED FOR USING DUPLICATE VEHICLES

WITH THE SAME ID (AIRPLANES, CARS ETC) IN MULTIPLE PLACES AT THE SAME TIME TO CREATE AN CONFUSION

FACTOR – WELL MULTIPLE OSWALD S WOULD DO NICELY FOR THAT AS WELL, AND OZ HIMSELF DOESN’T EVEN HAVE TO

KNOW ABOUT IT. HOOVER KNEW ABOUT SUCH GAMES AND THE CIA PLAYED THEM AS WELL AS ANYBODY ELSE…EVEN BETTER

SINCE THEY OFTEN FOOLED THEMSELVES WITH COMPARTMENTALIZATION.

Larry, in our correspondence together, you have noted more than once that Oswald could have been doubled

pretty easily and at a late stage when the prep for the assassination was already underway. Where do

you sit on the subject of "Oswald as long-term CIA/ONI/FBI mole/dangle/etc?"

I HAVE NO DOUBT HE WAS A LONG TERM DANGLE, SOMETIMES KNOWINGLY AND SOMETIMES NOT. IN SWHT I WRITE

ABOUT THAT DANGLE ROLE STARTING AS EARLY AS ATSUKI. ONCE HE VOLUNTEERED AS A DANGLE, AND ONCE PEOPLE

KNOW ABOUT IT, HE WOULD BECOME ATTRACTIVE TO MANY SORTS OF AGENCIES AND PEOPLE OVER TIME. YOU SEE

NAGELL BEING USED IN THAT WAY BY MULTIPLE PARTIES. TO CLARIFY THINGS A BIT, I BELIVE OSWALD KNOWINGLY

AND UNKNOWINGLY WAS USED IN THAT ROLE FROM JAPAN ON. PERHAPS HE THOUGHT IT WAS OVER WHEN HE CAME BACK

FROM RUSSIA BUT HIS MANUSCRIPT “FLIP” SHOWS HE WAS RECRUITED BY SOMEONE – ONE DAY HE WRITING ABOUT HATING

CPUSA FOR BEING THE TOOL OF THE RUSSIANS AND NEXT THING YOU KNOW HE’S WRITING THEM AS A VOLUNTEER AND

ASKING FOR GUIDANCE ON POSSIBLY GOING UNDERGROUND. I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER A SIGN YOU COULD

HAVE THAN THAT.

Angleton certainly seemed perfectly placed to throw Oswald under the "patsy" bus, even if he wasn't

the one to originally dangle him to the Soviets or whomever. I don't want to digress from Nexus,

but I feel it's a relevant connection to your work.

CHRIS, I THINK THE FACT THAT WHITTEN WAS INITIALLY ASSIGNED RATHER THAN ANGLETON IS PRETTY

SIGNIFICANT. IF, AS I BELIVE (AND AS PHILLIPS FINALLY STATED) A SMALL NUMBER OF US INTELLIGENCE

OFFICERS HAD ESSENTIALLY “STOLEN” OSWALD AS A PATSY FOR THEIR CONSPIRACY, THAT ACTUALLY BECAME CLEAR

AT SOME LEVELS WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION. I’VE WRITTEN ABOUT THAT, OTHERS ARE

WRITING MORE NOW. BY THAT TIME THE AGENCY HAS TWO SPECTACULAR PROBLEMS, COVERING UP THEIR KNOWELDGE OF

OSWALD PRIOR TO THE ASSASSINATION (YOU CAN IMAGINE THE HEADLINES ON THAT ONE) BUT MORE DEEPLY COVERING

UP THE FACT THAT THE BEST PEOPLE TO TRULY AND FULLY PATSY OSWALD WOULD BE PEOPLE WHO KNEW ABOUT HOW HE WAS

INDEED BEING DANGLED AND WHERE AN INVESTIGATION WOULD LEAD. ANGLETON WAS THE IDEAL CHOICE FOR A COVER UP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×