Alberto Gallego ?

[Tim Gratz]

Justin wrote:

"I read in the book Coincidence or Conspiracy written by Bernard Fensterwald that a law enforcement guru and head of Barry Goldwaters security, Hugh Mcdonald tracked down a man named Saul in europe somewhere. This Saul claimed to be a shooter in Dealey Plaza. Strangely enough Mcdonald claimed that Saul was the man photographed in Mexico City. I am wondering if this Saul fed Mcdonald ( respected law enforcement type who could not be called a "buff" ) this story to lead down a wrong path or if this Saul was who he claimed to be. One thing is for sure the Mexico City Oswald was there for a reason. Any additional info or time frame for the Mcdonald claims would be appreciated. Thanks, Justin"

I have one of McDonald's books. It is interesting to say the least. I will attempt, tomorrow, to summarize its claims. He states that Saul looked just like the man in the Mexico City photographs. If I recall correctly, he states the shots came from the second floor of the Dal Tex building.

One thing this case sure has is a surfeit of both theories and suspects!

[Tim Gratz]

Is it possible that LHO was an agent of the CIA and was on an Agency-related mission in Mexico City which was unrelated to the assassination?

Several possible missions suggest themselves.

Which could explain Phllips' attempts to get LHO "out of Mexico City". It could even explain WHY the false photographs were generated.

Which leads to several possibilities:

(1) LHO simply went nuts and shot JFK on his own. But because he was CIA associated, the cover-up.

(2) LHO was a double agent working for the other side. He either participated in the assassination or was made a patsy by the "other side" who knew his association with the CIA would guarantee a cover-up.

(3) LHO was not a double agent. Despite his association with the CIA, either the CIA or one of its "rogue elephants" planned the assassination, assuming his CIA connection would never be suspected. Under this scenario, LHO could have been a participant (on behalf of his CIA sponsor) or a "patsy" set up by his friends.

(4) LHO was not a double agent but was framed by "the other side" precisely because he was connected with the CIA.

(4) LHO was either a CIA agent or a double agent but the conspirators had no intelligence connections (or at least which were told about the assassination). LHO was the patsy to frame Castro. The conspitators were presumably anti-Castro Cubans or Mobsters or some of each.

Must of us would reject (1) (LN-tytpe scenario). If LHO was connected with CIA, I believe it would be foolhardy for anyone connected with the CIA to employ LHO as a participant or as a patsy, IMO. Therefore, I think, for instance, if Oswald was indeed seen with Bishop, that tends to exculpate not only Bishop but also any CIA agent. What an Oswald-CIA connection suggests to me is either a plot by "the other side" or a plot by persons who did not involve the CIA in their scheme.

I think concerned some members may consider me an "apologist" for the CIA, which is far from the truth. The fact that I do not think the CIA did it does not make me a CIA apologist. I think certain members of the CIA conspired in this country to commit murders on foreign soil and could have been (should have been) prosecuted for such plots. If in fact Castro did it, I believe he did it because the CIA repeatedly tried to kill him, and thus the actions of the CIA in fact "caused" the assassination.

I am not CERTAIN that LHO started as a CIA agent but there certainly seem to be indications he was associated with U.S. intelligence. That is one of the reasons I suspect U.S. intelligence was not witting of the assassination plots.

The only other possibility is that if people associated with the CIA plotted the assassination, they were not aware of LHO's CIA connections (compartmentalization and all that). IMO, this does not seem highly likely.

Of course, I could be wrong!

Edited January 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Greg Wagner]

Hi Tim-

With regard to LHO in Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips publicly stated, during a debate with Mark Lane at USC in 1977: "...but I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a catagorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all there was no proof of that. Second, there is no proof that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet embassy." Lane also states that Colby was "livid" with Phillips that night at the post debate dinner.

Now, I'm not sure that I would trust anything David Phillips said, but what would his motivatin be to make that statement if it were not true? Especially when this statement directly contradicts the CIA report claimimg the guy in those photos is Oswald.

IMHO, the Mexico City event was originally a CIA attempt to implicate Castro via Oswald.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very interesting, Greg.

I am of the firm belief that LHO visited Sylvia Odio in late September of 1963. I guess the question is could Oswald have been in both places?

Back to Nagell, I seem to remember that he told Dick Russell that Oswald was indeed in both locations. I'm not sure how that goes with the timing of known events but the Phillips information may be very important.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings James-

I too am a believer in the Odio meeting. But I don't think it is necessary to try and determine if LHO could have also visited Mexico City during that time. With all due respect to Tim, I believe that it's (thanks Tim) a mistake to believe that the Mexico City event was anything more than an attempt by those behind the coup to lay the blame at Castro's feet.

Castro may have had motive (that's a long list) based on our government's (both the CIA and RFK) attempts to kill him, but to me, that's where it ends. IMHO, the Castro and Krushchev (since it is alleged that LHO visited/attempted to visit the Soviet embassy also) "did it" scenarios don't quite add up.

I feel that a simple cost-benefit analysis renders Castro very unlikely. Assuming he could even pull it off in DP with such precision (a fact of which I am not convinced), he quite frankly had too much to lose. He had to know, especially given the influence of the hawks and cold warriors in our gov't at the time, that the end result would unquestionably be an all-out invasion of Cuba. Kennedy was the ONLY reason we hadn't invaded Cuba already (see The Cuban Missile Crisis- the Kennedys were practically the only ones who weren't chomping at the bit to invade. And there were plenty of powerful men pissed-off that he opted for a blockade).

General Curtis LeMay, head of the Air Force, was an outspoken advocate of a first-strike when it came to the USSR. In light of the back channel communications between JFK and NK (can anyone recommend a good book on this?), I believe they both realized the dangers the hard-liners in their respective governments posed. I just don't think NK viewed JFK as a threat. But rather as the only guy holding off the dogs (hawks). I think he preferred JFK right where he was.

Additionally, and most compelling regarding Shanet's theory, is the obvious complicity of the Secret Service. Neither NK nor Castro could have arranged this. Vince Palamara's stuff is particularly valuable in illustrating this. In my (some would say troubled) mind, this is absolutely indicative of a plot organized by officials high-up in our government (see Shanet's piece on the 25th amendment and C Douglas Dillon).

David Phillips public admission in 1977 with regard to the LHO/Mexico City event tells me that they were actively trying to lay the blame at Castro's feet. I think this piece of information is key, because if true (and I see no motivation for Phillips to lie in order to implicate himself and the Agency) it throws events like the Cubela affair and any other info linking Castro to the events in DP into serious question. In light of Phillips' statement (pg.82 of Lane's Plausible Denial), ANY "evidence" suggesting that Castro or Krushchev were behind the assassination must be viewed with a great deal of skepticism.

Finally, I believe that when Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris, he was probably representing the Agency, not RKF. It makes no sense for RFK to be arranging Castro's murder at the same point in time that his brother, the president, was sending an emmisary to meet with Castro about the possibility of normalizing relations.

Sorry if I got a little off-topic (Alberto Gallego), but I felt compelled to explain why I don't think it's necessary to try and figure out if LHO could have visited Sylvia Odio and also MC. LHO/MC was a CIA fabrication. If the ridiculous photos, the fact that the CIA lied to the HSCA about having destroyed the LHO/MC audio tapes (in order to conceal the fact that the FBI had evaluated them and determined that the voice was NOT Oswald's), and David Phillips' public admission (which statement, according to eyewitnesses, infuriated Colby) are not evidence enough that the CIA fabricated the LHO/MC event, then well, I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this one.

Thanks everyone for your contributions. Please understand that when I dissent from certain viewpoints, such as above, I mean no disrepect to those who view events differently. I appreciate hearing the diversity of thoughts and opinions. Even in instances where I don't necessarily agree, I tend to learn something or at least gain a better understanding of the different perspectives. BTW, anyone know what this little emoticon guy is supposed to be? I don't know, but I think he looks cool. Very clandestine

(James, I'm borrowing your line- thanks.)

Cheers

Edited January 31, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Greg Wagner]

Is it possible that LHO was an agent of the CIA and was on an Agency-related mission in Mexico City which was unrelated to the assassination?

Several possible missions suggest themselves.

Which could explain Phllips' attempts to get LHO "out of Mexico City".   It could even explain WHY the false photographs were generated.

Which leads to several possibilities:

(1)    LHO simply went nuts and shot JFK on his own.  But because he was CIA associated, the cover-up.

(2)    LHO was a double agent working for the other side.  He either participated in the assassination or was made a patsy by the "other side" who knew his association with the CIA would guarantee a cover-up.

(3)    LHO was not a double agent.  Despite his association with the CIA, either the CIA or one of its "rogue elephants" planned the assassination, assuming his CIA connection would never be suspected.  Under this scenario, LHO could have been a participant (on behalf of his CIA sponsor) or a "patsy" set up by his friends.

(4)    LHO was not a double agent but was framed by "the other side" precisely because he was connected with the CIA.

(4)    LHO was either a CIA agent or a double agent but the conspirators had no intelligence connections (or at least which were told about the assassination).  LHO was the patsy to frame Castro.  The conspitators were presumably anti-Castro    Cubans or Mobsters or some of each.

Must of us would reject (1) (LN-tytpe scenario).    If LHO was connected with CIA, I believe it would be foolhardy for anyone connected with the CIA to employ LHO as a participant or as a patsy, IMO.  Therefore, I think, for instance, if Oswald was indeed seen with Bishop, that tends to exculpate not only Bishop but also any CIA agent.   What an Oswald-CIA connection suggests to me is either a plot by "the other side" or a plot by persons who did not involve the CIA in their scheme.

I think concerned some members may consider me an "apologist" for the CIA, which is far from the truth.  The fact that I do not think the CIA did it does not make me a CIA apologist.  I think certain members of the CIA conspired in this country to commit murders on foreign soil and could have been (should have been) prosecuted for such plots.  If in fact Castro did it, I believe he did it because the CIA repeatedly tried to kill him, and thus the actions of the CIA in fact "caused" the assassination.

I am not CERTAIN that LHO started as a CIA agent but there certainly seem to be indications he was associated with U.S. intelligence.  That is one of the reasons I suspect U.S. intelligence was not witting of the assassination plots.

The only other possibility is that if people associated with the CIA plotted the assassination, they were not aware of LHO's CIA connections (compartmentalization and all that).  IMO, this does not seem highly likely.  

Of course, I could be wrong!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tim-

I don't think you are a CIA apologist. I think you have some intelligent lines of inquiry and have a belief in a certain version of the events surrounding 11/22/63. That's cool. I don't think I share all those beliefs, but I too, could certainly be wrong.

With regard to your points, I think #3 is somewhat intriquing. In a nutshell though, if you view the Roberts/Rybka video from Love Field, and read Palamara's accounts of interviews with the Secret Service personnel, their complicity is, in my mind at least, proven. And the orders came from the top (Boring, and presumably Dillon). That, to me, strongly suggests a domestic coup (is "domestic coup" redundant?).

Also, if you consider JFK's attitude toward the USSR (back channel discussions with NK), his refusal to invade Cuba during the Missile Crisis despite overwhelming pressure to do so (see RFK's, Thirteen Days), and his proposed withdrawal from Vietnam (see NSM 263 from 10/1963), it appears obvious that Kennedy had a VERY different agenda- in fact, opposite- than that of the CIA and the other hawks (Pentagon/Joint Chiefs) at high levels in the U.S. government. And since JFK was the president, his policies were the ones that were implemented. Until 11/22/63, that is.

Finally, I must say that Shanet's theory regarding the 25th amendment as ex-poste facto legislation justifying JFK's removal due to incapacity (Romesch, Campbell, drug usage, orgies, perceived "softness" on communism at the height of the Cold War and on the heels of the McCarthy hearings) makes way too much sense to me.

I'm off to shovel snow. Good day to all.

Edited January 31, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Shanet Clark]

Thanks Greg, my piece on all this is over on the SEMINAR threads.

I have always seen Lee Oswald as a minor, expendable, duped asset.

"a burn card" if you will. While he had some CIA connections, his

"legend" was so strong....defected to Minsk, protested for Castro,

on the air as a provocative communist....that he was put up for

public consumption as the bad guy.

Castro killing JFK would be like a prisoner stabbing the warden...not smart.

[Greg Wagner]

Hi Shanet-

Agreed on Oswald. His profile was way too high for me to think he was some kind of trusted agent, or double agent, etc. When you read his story, it feels too much like he's been packaged up and sent out on stage for all to see.

Good analogy above regarding the Castro angle.

It would be like a cop killer surrounded by a dozen angry cops, save one who insists that they simply arrest the man. And the man then shoots THAT cop. As you said: "Not smart."

Or it would be like if OJ took a knife and... (Oh, nevermind. Bad example.)

Edited January 30, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[James Richards]

Good posts, Greg.

You have some solid thoughts there. I agree that the whole Mexico City episode was a concoction to implicate.

Given that, I believe focusing persistant attention on what happened at Sylvia Odio's will eventually bear fruit. For me, identifying Leopoldo and Angel is vital and I believe some good in roads are being made.

I hope to have something to present on this shortly.

FWIW.

James

[Stan Wilbourne]

Has Kennedy's drug use been proved to most of you here? What was he allegedy taking?

I know that he was being regularly injected by Dr. Jacobs for the pain in his back. I've also heard of his use of amphetamines. What else? Marijuana? Cocaine? LSD? Heroin? Some of that would seem to stretch the bounds of imagination. Does all this stuff come from Mary Meyer?

I must say, Shanet's theory on the assassination makes a lot of sense to me as well. A young, maverick president that could not be trusted or controlled, so they removed him from his office. Sometimes I wonder if the Texas oil angle is just another patsy in this long, winding saga.

[Shanet Clark]

I will respond to that, Stan, but very carefully.

I have second (hearsay) that JFK smoked cannabis sativa.

Let me set a historical ecology or habitus of what the "scene" was, the preferences. It was all very hip Los angeles cutting edge Hollywood lifestyles you understand...Joey Bishop, Joey Heatherton, Angie Dickinson, Dorothy Kilgallen, Peter Lawford, Frank, Rowan and Martin, Dean Martin....

Now when my older contemporary Dr. Oscar Janiger engaged the treatment of actors inHollywood he would occasionally indicate a psychological patient for what were called hallucinogenics in English, Phantastica in German...These had been popularized by Aldous Huxley in the DOORS of PERCEPTION, mescaline as well....Gary Cooper and a few pioneers pre dated the 1966 Stanford san jose berkeley san francisco emergence. Many are said to have been intimate with John F. Kennedy. Of course the literary characters Ginsburg Kesey and Cassidy were involved (as guinea pigs in the MK ULTRA public outreach testing of LSD 25 also during the Kennedy Administration. It a quite cogent, coherent, and compelling theory or linking factor approach. Mary Meyer and her associates were typical of the class habitus, as were JFK and his family. He was not a big drinker, but he was involved in a dominantly male alcohol indulgent anglo-american and anglo irish society, where quite often he was the last and most promiscuous man still standing at midnight when the courtesans indulged him.

Ampehtamines and raw steroids were employed to hold the Addisons at bay,

and he checked into a hospital once with jaundice when his adrenals nearlly failed. His hostile militant reactionary opponents used all this against him unfairly, via their secret clearance files, and sanctioned him, probably, with the drug use right up there as a cause for loss of standing.

Edited January 31, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Shanet Clark]

first fault

Edited January 31, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Shanet Clark]

fault

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet wrote:

"Castro killing JFK would be like a prisoner stabbing the warden...not smart."

Shanet: why not smart? The Kennedy Administration had iniitiated Operation Mongoose, as you know, and Kennedy after the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy reauthorized sabotage operations against Cuba which were continuing into November of 1963. There were plans for a second invasion of Cuba. Fidel captured CIA-trained assassins in late October of 1963. Reportedly with the express authorization of JFK's brother (who was organizing the anti-Castro activities) CIA operatives were giving a member of Castro's cabinet a "weapon" with which to kill him.

What the heck did Castro have to lose by killing JFK?

The fact that Castro is alive today proves his gambit worked. As Joseph Califano has written, and as documents demonstrate, LBJ called off the war against Castro, instead turning his attention to a war in Asia.

Did Castro in fact lose anything by the death of JFK? No, nothing. To the contrary, he probably saved his life. Sooner or later one of the CIA's plots to shoot, stab or poison Castro was bound to succeed.

Why do you think Castro scheduled his interview with Jean Daniel to coincide with the death in Dallas? Just another coincidence, I guess.

Edited January 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Stan Wilbourne]

So, Shanet, you're saying John Kennedy had, on occasion, taken LSD and smoked marijuana. While President???

[Tim Gratz]

Does it make a difference, at least to assassination research, if JFK did drugs in the White House? I mean, we know he was a serial adulterer, why further blacken his reputation on irrelevancies? Are we serving any purpose here?

[Shanet Clark]

So, Shanet, you're saying John Kennedy had, on occasion, taken LSD and smoked marijuana.  While President???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My associates in Los Angeles relate that JFK preferred Marijuana to Codeine and

Morphine, and it reduced his chronic back pain, allowing him to be more active.

I know some old nineteen sixties screen writers and authors who vouch for that part. Is it published elsewhere? I don't know. Was it in his secret file before the assassination? I don't know. But I doubt he took the LSD (which is fairly well documented by Mary Meyers associates) if he had no experience to cannabis first.

That is the crucial issue. Mary Meyer's account and the Seymour Hersh would support this, and if true, the issue might be incapacity as a pretext.

I didn't mention here the orgies, poor choices of bed partners and general resistance to militants