Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

The Biggest Lies.... Untangled

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
On 10/12/2017 at 8:47 AM, Glenn Nall said:

Glenn I know you've been here many times before. I don't know if you associate people's posts with their names.  But I do  and I have absolutely no idea why you saw fit to say that Paul B. has gone to great efforts "defending the CIA." Good one!

 

Associate people's posts with their names? huh?

You have no idea, or are you being facetious? Thank you, I think.

(I think it's common knowledge that Mr Brancato's defences of the Agency, as ambiguous as he thinks they are, precede him...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 7:31 PM, Jim Hargrove said:
On 10/13/2017 at 10:13 AM, Pat Speer said:

I found it in the Armstrong collection, on page 3, here

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/614/rec/1

Megathanks, Pat!  Let’s put it right here to be sure we’re all on the same page.

Cadigan_Changes.jpg

 

Just a cautionary note:

For some reason the phrase "along with SA Cadigan's transcript" was added to the above document after it was first typed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 3:52 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Really? Show me how. I think the conspiracy was run by men from several branches, including CIA, and I don't see the clear demarcations between Military and CIA that many do. 

Should I start referring to you as Glenn Nail? My name is Brancato, not Bronco. 

Glenn, So anything short of a complete CIA -did-it theory is "defending the CIA" in your judgment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just a cautionary note:

For some reason the phrase "along with SA Cadigan's transcript" was added to the above document after it was first typed.

Good point.  At first I thought the difference in the typography was the result of a highlight pen that had sort of faded.  But the period appears to be changed to a comma as well, suggesting otherwise. 

The innocent (hah!) explanation would be that the FBI decided late to add SA Cadigan’s altered testimony to the pile of pages of altered testimony by SA Frazier and SA Stombaugh and saved time by not having to type an additional full-page referral to explain it all.

A less innocent explanation would be that Dulles himself altered Cadigan’s testimony about the secret evidence transfer and retransfer, without Hoover’s approval, and this addition was a sort of post-alteration FBI imprimatur.  John A. thinks the handwriting altering Cadigan’s words on the raw transcript was by Dulles himself.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Glenn, So anything short of a complete CIA -did-it theory is "defending the CIA" in your judgment?

good golly, Kirk. never mind.

you'll see his inclination to argue semantics sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right Glenn, you've convinced me. Paul, knock off the f---------n' semantics!

Hah

 

Don't let the mighty generals----turn you around

S.M.B.---not S.M.!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 8:14 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

III. COLLUSION OF THE FBI AND CIA

The FBI took Oswald off the watch list, managed by its “WANTED NOTICE” cards, at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, just a couple of months after his New Orleans arrest for alleged violence in support of Communist Cuba and less than two months before the assassination.  These two actions effectively took the federal spotlight off “Lee Harvey Oswald.”


Wanted_Notice_Card.jpg

 

The WC didn’t even bother to depose the Division 5 guy (Gheesling) who ordered the FBI's flash cancellation. “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been on that list for nearly four years, since the “defection.” Now that he was taken off it, he’d no longer be under FBI and SS surveillance on 11/22.

At the very same time the FBI was taking “Lee Harvey Oswald” off the watch list, the CIA was publishing several confusing things about him. Responding to a query from the Mexico City station, four CIA officers signed a cable giving lots of accurate biographical data on our boy but calling him “Lee Henry Oswald.” The three page cable expressed no security concerns whatsoever about Oswald and, in fact, indicated the Moscow embassy felt “life in the Soviet Union had clearly had maturing effect on Oswald.” Nothing to worry about here!

This cable was signed by Jane Roman (Angleton’s assistant), William Hood (also close to Angleton), Thomas Karamessines (assistant to Helms) and John Whitten who, according to Jefferson Morley, was the only CIA officer of the four signers who suffered any adverse consequences for this troubling cable. John Armstrong believes that Angleton ran the Oswald Project.

Lee_Henry_Oswald_1.jpg
Lee_Henry_Oswald_2.jpg

At the same time the FBI was taking “Lee Harvey Oswald” off the watch list, the CIA was giving “Lee Henry Oswald” (biographical data mostly matching LHO’s official biography) a clean bill of political health in the infamous cable of 10/10/63 (see above). 

It was now no longer officially necessary for the FBI to monitor “Oswald’s” activities in Dallas. And the Secret Service would no longer be expected to investigate him prior to a presidential visit to Dallas.

Although “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been arrested for a supposedly violent confrontation in support of Fidel Castro in New Orleans just two months earlier, the entire National Security apparatus of our Federal government now seemed to just stop worrying about him. What happened next, of course, has been documented by scores of writers and filmmakers for more than half a century.

“Lee Harvey Oswald,” or more likely someone who looked like him, began making all kinds of appearances in and around Dallas. These appearances were clearly designed to attract attention. Here are just some:

 

“Oswald” visits the Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target;

On Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits Morgan's Gun Shop in Fort Worth.

Also on Nov. 2 “Oswald” visits the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drives a car at wrecklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.

On Nov. 6 or 7 “Oswald” visits the Irving Furniture Mart for a gun part and is referred to the shop where Dial Ryder works.

On Nov. 15, “Oswald” goes to the Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) and applies for a job and asks how high the Southland Building is and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.

On Nov. 20 “Oswald” hitch-hikes on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4 foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introduces himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” discusses the President's visit, and asks to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” is already working).

 

The set-up of “Lee Harvey Oswald” was almost complete. Could this have been accomplished if the FBI and the Secret Service hadn’t been put to sleep just a few weeks earlier?

Can anyone suggest an innocent interpretation of this apparent collusion by the FBI and CIA to set up a patsy for the assassination of JFK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Can anyone suggest an innocent interpretation of this apparent collusion by the FBI and CIA to set up a patsy for the assassination of JFK?

I would suggest the POV that the CIA was the instigator of "Oswald in Mexico" which puts Hoover on the immediate defensive.

I don't think "Patsy" was the thought when Oswald starts working with Bannister... but "infiltration and intel" - just so happens that the bona fides for THAT job put Oswald squarely in the crosshairs for patsy status....

Real question...  Were Chicago and Tampa real or part of the set up in Dallas?

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I would suggest the POV that the CIA was the instigator of "Oswald in Mexico" which puts Hoover on the immediate defensive.

I don't think "Patsy" was the thought when Oswald starts working with Bannister... but "infiltration and intel" - just so happens that the bona fides for THAT job put Oswald squarely in the crosshairs for patsy status....

Real question...  Were Chicago and Tampa real or part of the set up in Dallas?

I agree with you, David. It's been my thoughts for a while that O thought he was into something - no telling if he thought he was (or actually was, at one point) obtaining long-preorganized Communist data, or FBI/CIA data on Alpha 66, Second Naval Guerrilla and/or other anti-Cuba Revolutionary groups, and I think that he did ultimately appear to somebody with a big scapegoat's head on his shoulders. And of course, he was the last person to find out, right around 12.30 pm on November 22, 1961.

Regarding Tampa, this is from R. Bartholomew's Possible Automobile "monograph" (what he calls it). John Martino's name comes up a lot regarding Florida and Cuban Casinos, and gun-running...:

Through [Nathaniel] Weyl [Martino's ghost writer for I Was Castro's Prisoner], Martino arranged for two ex-CIA agents on Pawley's payroll to attend a meeting in Fort Lauderdale of anti-Castro leaders designed to "find out what the CIA was doing" and report back to President Kennedy who "didn't trust the agency and felt he was receiving bad information." An initial meeting had already brought Martino together with fellow anti-Castro loose cannons Howard Davis, Eddie Bayo, and Gerry Patrick Hemming (Oswald's Marine buddy), in the office of Miami News editor Bill Boggs, a Kennedy confidant...

Life magazine's Dick Billings accompanied Pawley, Martino, William "Rip" Robertson, and the exile guerrillas, led by Bayo, on the mission [Operation Red Cross]. Billings would soon be stationed at Life's temporary bureau at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas covering the Kennedy assassination, where he would aid Richard B. Stolley and C.D. Jackson in the negotiations to buy the Zapruder film.

Former Ambassador Pawley, who founded General Chenault's Flying Tigers, had also participated in the Guatemala coup, had co-authored the infamous Doolittle Report with his friend Allen Dulles, had pressured Eisenhower to give American support to the first anti-Castro exiles, and had persuaded Clare Booth Luce (Life Magazine) to finance anti-Castro guerrilla operations. An FBI report written years before the assassination described Martino as a "close friend" of Santos Trafficante. Bayo was reportedly involved in the July 1961 double assassination plot against Fidel and Raúl Castro run out of the Guantánamo Naval base. He later joined Alpha 66.

Henry Crown's name (President of General Dynamics, President of Hilton Hotels at some point, if my memory serves, and several other "things") floats around curiously in the way of mysterious ex-CIA men running his General Dynamics Security efforts, his connections with a couple of old-style Chicago bent-noses, AND as a Director of a Cuban Casino or two (Havana Hilton...).

BOTH Trafficante and especially Giancana had more Italian-made motivations to infiltrate Cuba (and hate Kennedy) than did other Mafia bosses. I'm sure you're aware that all of the gambling (both Vegas and Cuba) was controlled by Giancana, who it's appearing to me to be the HMIC (head mafioso in charge) of the entire bent-nosed country. You gotta know they weren't happy with Castro tossing all the slot machines into the ocean.

So, sure, there're plenty of links (many more than this, of course) to connect Tampa to this whole "bay of pigs" thing - probably not as heavily involved as any of the other entities, but surely involved. (Trafficante and Carlos Marcello - who O's uncle "Dutz" Murret worked for at times - did a lot of "business" together.)

As far as Chicago's connections, I have my own ideas why I think they were more involved, tactically or logistically, but i won't go into them here. I'm tired of typing and not getting any work done.

Ya'll leave me alone so I can work!!! :)

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 3:31 PM, Glenn Nall said:

good golly, Kirk. never mind.

you'll see his inclination to argue semantics sooner or later.

Glenn - do you recall what I said that led you to this conclusion? Or perhaps it's something personal, perhaps in an old thread. I've actually stated my position many times on many threads. You are just plain wrong. It's not at all semantics to argue that the members of the CIA or any other organization don't march in lockstep. Do you honestly think that Dulles and Helms and whoever knew everything that Angleton was up to? Can I suspect a cabal that was not limited to members of one particular agency or military branch or limited to those in and out of officialdom without being labeled by you a CIA apologist? If you had really read my most recent posts you would know what I really think, and wouldn't be instead labeling me in a way no one here would support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Glenn - do you recall what I said that led you to this conclusion? Or perhaps it's something personal, perhaps in an old thread. I've actually stated my position many times on many threads. You are just plain wrong. It's not at all semantics to argue that the members of the CIA or any other organization don't march in lockstep. Do you honestly think that Dulles and Helms and whoever knew everything that Angleton was up to? Can I suspect a cabal that was not limited to members of one particular agency or military branch or limited to those in and out of officialdom without being labeled by you a CIA apologist? If you had really read my most recent posts you would know what I really think, and wouldn't be instead labeling me in a way no one here would support.

knowing how defensive you can get, Paul, I was mostly just joshing with you...

there was a post a couple of weeks ago - by Sandy, I think, but I'm not sure - where was said something about someone "working with" or "working for" the CIA and you promptly "corrected" this assertion by saying that this someone was not an Agent, when that's not was said at all.

that's what I mean by "semantics."

I won't bother looking for it for you, though. I shouldn't even be saying this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like Paul Trejo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 9:43 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Too CIA centered. Some military, oilmen in there too. Suggest Jack Crichton, who was both.

Paul,

I had a lengthy phone conversation last night with Russ Baker (whowhatwhy.org) who, as you may already know, has done all sorts of research on Jack Crichton and the 488th Military Intel Detachment in Dallas.  Russ says this research is ongoing, beyond what he wrote in Family of Secrets.  I’m looking forward to getting up to speed on his research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 8:59 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Paul,

I had a lengthy phone conversation last night with Russ Baker (whowhatwhy.org) who, as you may already know, has done all sorts of research on Jack Crichton and the 488th Military Intel Detachment in Dallas.  Russ says this research is ongoing, beyond what he wrote in Family of Secrets.  I’m looking forward to getting up to speed on his research.

You may have seen my post on The Skorzeny Papers. Jack Crichton is mentioned a few times, though there is no additional detail on the 488th. There is however his involvement in a syndicate which obtained drilling rights in Spain in the early 1950’s. I’m sure that Russ Baker is looking as deeply as he can into Crichton, and I’ll be really interested when he shares his research. Ralph Ganis, author of the Skorzeny Papers, draws connections between Skorzeny and many Dallas businessmen and oilmen including Crichton. He also connects the White Russian Dallas community with Skorzeny. Most interesting is the possibility that this included DeMohrenschildt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to catch up to Mr. Baker's work on Cricthon, despite a lot of H&L updates from JA.  Evidence against Crichton is compelling but, as far as I can tell, purely circumstantial.  As a former OSS employee with ties to the Dallas PD and Poppy Bush and especially as creator and long-term commander of the 488th Intel unit in Dallas, he was in a position to pull a lot of strings in that city in 1963.  But the only thing approaching real evidence against him I’ve seen is that he set up the clearly agenda-driven Mamantov as interpreter for Marina and the authorities immediately after the hit.

This is not to make light of his potential involvement in the assassination.  If my life depended on the right answer, perhaps I’d bet he had something fairly significant to do with it, but from what I know so far, it is hardly a slam dunk.  Compare this scant evidence against what we have for the CIA.

For example, there are Oswald’s obvious intelligence ties, the diplomatic war between the Kennedy Administration and the CIA that had spilled into the pages of the NY Times, the simultaneous issue of the FBI cancellation of Oswald’s wanted notice with the CIA’s “Lee Henry Oswald” cable, Nagell’s knowledge of the coming hit, CIA accountant James Wilcott’s sworn testimony, and, even more significantly, how CIA people like Angleton, Hunt, Joannides, and especially Phillips just seemed to be all over this thing like flies on roadkill.  

Where is evidence like that against Crichton and the 488th?  That complaint aside, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Crichton was one of the plotters.
 

Edited by Jim Hargrove

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

×