Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Brancato]

I don't buy your logic. Hoover had a flash of insight and the rest is history? Scott has said many times over the years that he is not convinced that Oswald was in MC at all. It was the plotters you think were behind the assassination who were willing to fight a war. No war occurred, which to me suggests that the extreme ideologues were not the actual plotters. The 'why' was not 'let's have a war and blow Cuba out of the water and destroy the USSR. It was let's have a war in Vietnam and make lots of money. Its the money, not the ideology, that JFK's future actions threatened. The cold war, and the regional wars, are lucrative, and keeping us in that perpetual state, like we are now with the apparently endless war on terrorism, is what the military industrial establishment wants.

We can agree to disagree on this.

[Paul Trejo]

I don't buy your logic. Hoover had a flash of insight and the rest is history? Scott has said many times over the years that he is not convinced that Oswald was in MC at all. It was the plotters you think were behind the assassination who were willing to fight a war. No war occurred, which to me suggests that the extreme ideologues were not the actual plotters. The 'why' was not 'let's have a war and blow Cuba out of the water and destroy the USSR. It was let's have a war in Vietnam and make lots of money. Its the money, not the ideology, that JFK's future actions threatened. The cold war, and the regional wars, are lucrative, and keeping us in that perpetual state, like we are now with the apparently endless war on terrorism, is what the military industrial establishment wants.

We can agree to disagree on this.

Well, Paul B., we shall agree to disagree. Peter Dale Scott leaves the question open, which is proper under the circumstances. One cannot draw a conclusion based on CIA documents that are still classified top secret.

The claim that Hoover had a flash of insight on the night of the JFK assassination is not my own, and I'll try to find the source for you. It is plausible since the Lone Nut theory basically blames Marguerite Oswald, the domineering mother, and Hoover had also lived with a domineering mother, so it was familiar territory for him. It also solved all the problems that Hoover perceived that night, i.e. that Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to so many governmental agencies and yet was at the center of the JFK assassination.

Further, start with these facts: (1) extremists wanted to risk WW3 to take back Cuba; and (2) no war occurred.

You conclude from this that the extremists "were not the actual plotters." That doesn't follow on its own. I can propose that: (3) the extremists were the actual plotters; (4) LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles had to deal with this challenge -- a Communist killed our President; so quit stalling; and (5) they had to think fast, so Hoover came up with the idea of the Lone Nut Oswald to immediately block the challenge.

LBJ liked the idea, and Warren and Dulles signed off on it. (Thus, Dulles was not one of the plotters, since he supported Hoover's Lone Nut theory.) What has been top-secret for a half-century is that LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles all knew exactly who the real plotters were -- but they could not blame the real plotters, because this would open the possibility of World War 3. So, they deftly solved the problem with the Lone Nut theory.

You say, Paul B., that the motive was not Cuba, but Vietnam. But that is a weak case, IMHO, because you have not proved that JFK would have pulled all US troops out of Vietnam. JFK would say anything to get reelected, as would any politician. LBJ and Nixon also promised to pull all US troops out of Vietnam -- but they didn't. So we have no proof that JFK would have done so, either.

No, it wasn't about the money. It was about ideology. IMHO, JFK was killed because the right-wing considered him to be a Communist traitor. The plotters got their articulation from the John Birch Society.

In my theory, LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles saved the USA from the right-wing menace in 1963. They are heroes. Yet this also means that Marguerite Oswald was right! Lee Harvey Oswald was also a hero in this regard, because he took the full blame for the right-wing plotters, and in a certain sense, he did more for the USA than any living person of his time. That's my theory.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

For absolute clarity, I would like to point out that my original statements concerning Harry Dean were based upon John Simkin's description of Dean's involvement with the Birch Society -- which you may still see here:

From: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

"In 1975 Harry J. Dean claimed he had been an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who in 1962 infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that John Rousselot and General Edwin Walker had hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy."

I objected to two statements made in this sentence, i.e.

(1) Dean was never an "undercover agent" for the FBI [He simply provided unsolicited raw information to the Chicago FBI field office]

(2) Dean never "infiltrated" the JBS [The FBI never assigned anybody to "infiltrate" the JBS because there was nothing which the FBI wanted to know that required an "infiltrator"; Furthermore, the FBI never even investigated the JBS. Infiltrators were used when there was an ongoing investigation and the FBI needed confidential information about the targeted group.]

I would also like to point out that John Simkin described the publication of The Politician partially correctly when he wrote:

"In 1961 Robert Welch published The Politician (better known as the Black Book)." [The first published version was in 1963, not 1961. The major newspaper publicity about the existence of Welch's "private letter" manuscript entitled The Politician commenced in April 1961 -- which is probably why John used the 1961 date. However, John correctly wrote that WELCH published it -- not (as Paul Trejo falsely claimed), the JBS]

And John Simkin CORRECTLY wrote in this article about General John K. Singlaub: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsinglaub.htm that

"As a specialist in unconventional warfare and covert operations, Singlaub kept a low profile. However, he eventually became chief of staff of the United Nations Command in South Korea. He was forced to resign in May, 1978 after criticizing President Jimmy Carter and his plans to reduce the number of troops in South Korea."

You may also see additional confirmations regarding Singlaub's RESIGNATION here:

Los Angeles Times book review of Singlaub's autobiography:

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-06/books/bk-50_1_hazardous-duty

"Singlaub spoke out against policies promulgated by President Carter that the general considered weak or worse. Not once, but twice. Carelessly. In front of reporters. In 1978, after 35 years of good and true military service, he was forced to resign."

ALSO HERE:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ymANimNtKAIC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=john+k+singlaub+resign&source=bl&ots=EVPDgrZcSB&sig=nSCFR-sE-CAFeZai-cTRBDdQsh0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ELmgUqG6KIH2oASKlYL4CQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=john%20k%20singlaub%20resign&f=false

So much for Paul T's categorical statement regarding Edwin Walker being the only U.S. General to resign in the 20th century. I can provide comparable DOCUMENTATION for the other U.S. Army Generals who resigned during the 20th century which I mentioned in one of my previous messages.

BUT----CAN PAUL PROVIDE OR IDENTIFY EVEN ONE SOURCE TO DOCUMENT HIS ASSERTION ABOUT EDWIN WALKER?

Notice the difference between how I present evidence compared to Paul Trejo.

1. I provide specific details

2. I provide links to corroborating evidence

3. Paul provides NOTHING WHATSOEVER except his bald assertions.

Ernie, your nonsense keeps on coming -- all your long-winded posts do is repeat your bias and sloppy methodology.

For example, you quoted Simkin's text about Harry Dean, and then you blame Harry Dean for its lack of truth.

Yet we've already told you that Simkin's text was never proposed by Harry Dean, instead, it was a series of fictional statements by W.R. Morris, the famous fiction writer who was seeking a Hollywood movie deal.

Also, regarding General Singlaub, he was fired -- he did not voluntarily resign. He did not forfeit his pension, as in the cases of voluntary resignation, like Major General Edwin A. Walker.

You're not very careful with your research, Ernie. You have a lot of volume -- but quantity is not the same as quality.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

No, Paul, as usual you have a brain freeze.

1. I do NOT blame Harry Dean for what you characterize as John Simkin's mistakes. I merely pointed out that my introduction to Harry Dean's story came from my reading (in June 2010) of messages posted here on EF. Since this website is sympathetic to Harry, I responded to what was presented here. I note for the record, that over 3 years later---what YOU claim are errors have not been corrected.)

2. HOWEVER -- in addition to what John Simkin wrote -- I then was able to see numerous posts by Harry which ALSO contained false statements and assertions. I was also able to see Harry's answers to questions posed to him by John and by other readers. There is nothing which Harry has posted here which changed my conclusion about him.

3. WALKER: Well, now you have changed your original statement. Your original statement was never qualified or conditioned upon any particular factors. You simply stated that Walker was the only US General who resigned--period. Numerous Generals have "resigned" -- both voluntarily and involuntarily. Some (like Major Gen. John Medaris) voluntarily resigned because (he said) he had been under a lot of strain for seven years as head of the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency and he was tired of inter-service bickering. Other Generals resigned because of the general perception that they were not doing their jobs properly.

You are not very careful in your alleged "research" Paul. You have a lot of volume, but quantity is not the same as quality.

ADDENDUM:

For those readers who think Paul Trejo knows what he is talking about -- I suggest you read "Resignation In Protest" which was published in the professional journal "Army" (Volume 40, #1, January 1990, pages 12-21).

Edited December 6, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I don't buy your logic. Hoover had a flash of insight and the rest is history? Scott has said many times over the years that he is not convinced that Oswald was in MC at all. It was the plotters you think were behind the assassination who were willing to fight a war. No war occurred, which to me suggests that the extreme ideologues were not the actual plotters. The 'why' was not 'let's have a war and blow Cuba out of the water and destroy the USSR. It was let's have a war in Vietnam and make lots of money. Its the money, not the ideology, that JFK's future actions threatened. The cold war, and the regional wars, are lucrative, and keeping us in that perpetual state, like we are now with the apparently endless war on terrorism, is what the military industrial establishment wants.

We can agree to disagree on this.

Well, Paul B., we shall agree to disagree. Peter Dale Scott leaves the question open, which is proper under the circumstances. One cannot draw a conclusion based on CIA documents that are still classified top secret.

The claim that Hoover had a flash of insight on the night of the JFK assassination is not my own, and I'll try to find the source for you. It is plausible since the Lone Nut theory basically blames Marguerite Oswald, the domineering mother, and Hoover had also lived with a domineering mother, so it was familiar territory for him. It also solved all the problems that Hoover perceived that night, i.e. that Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to so many governmental agencies and yet was at the center of the JFK assassination.

Further, start with these facts: (1) extremists wanted to risk WW3 to take back Cuba; and (2) no war occurred.

You conclude from this that the extremists "were not the actual plotters." That doesn't follow on its own. I can propose that: (3) the extremists were the actual plotters; (4) LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles had to deal with this challenge -- a Communist killed our President; so quit stalling; and (5) they had to think fast, so Hoover came up with the idea of the Lone Nut Oswald to immediately block the challenge.

LBJ liked the idea, and Warren and Dulles signed off on it. (Thus, Dulles was not one of the plotters, since he supported Hoover's Lone Nut theory.) What has been top-secret for a half-century is that LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles all knew exactly who the real plotters were -- but they could not blame the real plotters, because this would open the possibility of World War 3. So, they deftly solved the problem with the Lone Nut theory.

You say, Paul B., that the motive was not Cuba, but Vietnam. But that is a weak case, IMHO, because you have not proved that JFK would have pulled all US troops out of Vietnam. JFK would say anything to get reelected, as would any politician. LBJ and Nixon also promised to pull all US troops out of Vietnam -- but they didn't. So we have no proof that JFK would have done so, either.

No, it wasn't about the money. It was about ideology. IMHO, JFK was killed because the right-wing considered him to be a Communist traitor. The plotters got their articulation from the John Birch Society.

In my theory, LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles saved the USA from the right-wing menace in 1963. They are heroes. Yet this also means that Marguerite Oswald was right! Lee Harvey Oswald was also a hero in this regard, because he took the full blame for the right-wing plotters, and in a certain sense, he did more for the USA than any living person of his time. That's my theory.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

The essential problem with Paul's theory is that removing JFK could not, and did not, address the pervasive "Communist traitor" problem which Paul thinks motivated the plotters.

Robert Welch made the following comments to the first meeting of the JBS National Council (January 1960) in Chicago:

“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons." [Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]

"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..."

“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.”

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ...

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department."

Obviously, with this degree of pervasive "Communist" control of our government -- simply murdering a President would be a futile act.

In 1961, the JBS told its membership that the United States was 50-70% "under Communist influence and control". At that time (according to the JBS) Communist traitors and their enablers ("agents") were in operational control all of the major cabinet departments of our government and they controlled the U.S. Supreme Court (which is why the JBS initiated its "Impeach Earl Warren" campaign). According to JBS dogma, the U.S. Congress could not be relied upon to protect our freedoms.

In 1964 (with LBJ now in control), the JBS told its membership that "Communist influence and control" of the U.S. Government increased to 60-80%.

In addition, the JBS position was that the war in Vietnam was being controlled "on both sides" by Communists and the JBS described our civil rights movement as follows:

"For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years."

Robert Welch recommended a JBS-published book about the civil rights movement entitled "It's Very Simple" -- and that book's essential predicate was that our "civil rights movement was not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”

So -- obviously, from the point of view of the extreme right in our country, murdering JFK had no beneficial impact of any kind. If anything, the objective situation became exponentially worse!

[Paul Brancato]

But it did make the Vietnam war a certainty

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul - long email. Just a quick response - the whole point of the Kostikov Oswald sheep dip was that there would be no proper investigation once the Soviet connection was known, and Angleton made sure that they would not find out about Kostikov until after the deed was done. This is of course what did happen, and the reason why Earl Warren agreed to chair the commission. LBJ was able to say to him and others he asked to serve that the alternative to Oswald the lone nut was WW3, which is exactly P D Scott and Newman's point. That is why Newman lays the patsy plan on Angleton. Only he held those cards, and the presumption here is that he foresaw the impossible situation his plan would present to the investigating authorities. As Scott points out, the rhetoric in the first 24 hours after the assassination changed from calling Oswald a Communist to calling him a Marxist. The Soviet connection became known that quickly, and the kabosh was put on any talk of conspiracy, as per the plan.,

Ernie - your point is the conventional view. Thanks for responding. I know my postulate isn't, but despite all the logic you present I still find it possible for the reasons I gave, that this was an exceptional case and deemed necessary by those 'patriots' who took on the task.

Paul B:

It is considerably more than "conventional view" -- a term which suggests that the statements which I presented were anecdotal or folklore.

If you have access in your local library to a news media database (such as NewsBank or ProQuest Historical) I suggest that you perform a search to discover all the media reports during the past 20 or 30 years concerning criminal conspiracies -- particularly those which I previously described as the most robust and secretive types of conspiracies involving actors who had very little compunction about using brute force and threats/intimidation to achieve their objectives. If you do the research, you will discover how quickly such conspiracies are discovered or unravel.

In my experience, most adherents of conspiracy arguments insist that we accept their "exceptionalism" argument. This is what I describe in my article about conspiracies as the notion that we cannot apply our accumulated historical knowledge about conspiracies to either a contemporary conspiracy alleged to be in operation or to analysis of past historical events.

In this scheme of things, we are asked to believe that the conspiracy under scrutiny does not operate according to normal rules of human behavior nor does it operate in the same manner (or leave footprints) as do all other conspiracies about which we have knowledge. Hence, we are asked to believe that the methodology successfully used to detect, penetrate, and expose previous conspiracies in history is now inapplicable.

ALL conspiracies are populated by actors who do not wish to be detected.

ALL conspiracies involve secrecy and deception.

ALL conspiracies use methods to hide and protect the conspirators and thwart penetration by outsiders

ALL conspiracies have had defectors or disillusioned participants or witnesses that have come forward to expose the conspiracy.

As previously stated, the more actors involved in a conspiracy, the more likely it is that the conspiracy will quickly be revealed or unravel -- because conspiratorial plots (no matter how well planned or executed) still involve individual human beings with different skills and abilities, with different emotional and psychological limitations, and with normal egos and sensitivities. Human nature and human flaws are not jettisoned just because somebody decides to participate in a plot of some kind.

[Paul Trejo]

But it did make the Vietnam war a certainty

The most that can be said with certainty, IMHO, is that the Vietnam War took America's mind off of Cuba -- instantly.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

Robert Welch made the following comments to the first meeting of the JBS National Council (January 1960) in Chicago:

“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

<snip>

This quotation from Robert Welch, only months after General Edwin A. Walker joined Welch's so-called John Birch Society, adequately proves that Welch was a traitor to the USA, and should have been arrested and tried as a traitor during the Cold War.

Eisenhower's failure to silence Welch, and JFK's failure to silence Welch, enabled a grass-roots groundswell in the USA that encouraged the true-believers in Welch's claptrap to successfully assassinate JFK.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

ALL conspiracies are populated by actors who do not wish to be detected.

ALL conspiracies involve secrecy and deception.

ALL conspiracies use methods to hide and protect the conspirators and thwart penetration by outsiders

ALL conspiracies have had defectors or disillusioned participants or witnesses that have come forward to expose the conspiracy.

<snip>

This is obviously false. Every authentic Presidential assassin in US history has jumped before the crowd to announce why he killed the President, what his politics were, and tried to advance his political cause in this way.

Only skulking cowards -- like those in the John BIrch Society that killed JFK (IMHO) -- hid in the bushes and denied any responsibility for what they did. They were hoping that America would invade Cuba on their behalf -- but it took only a few hours for the US government to figure out their stupid plan and undermine them. After that the yellow-stripe down their backs could be seen sinking back into their suburban living rooms, watching television.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

In 1964 (with LBJ now in control), the JBS told its membership that "Communist influence and control" of the U.S. Government increased to 60-80%.

In addition, the JBS position was that the war in Vietnam was being controlled "on both sides" by Communists and the JBS described our civil rights movement as follows:

"For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years."

Robert Welch recommended a JBS-published book about the civil rights movement entitled "It's Very Simple" -- and that book's essential predicate was that our "civil rights movement was not only planned by the Communists, but was begun, is staffed, and is conducted by the Communists—and has only one real purpose: the destruction and communization of America.”

So -- obviously, from the point of view of the extreme right in our country, murdering JFK had no beneficial impact of any kind. If anything, the objective situation became exponentially worse!

Sloppy logic, Ernie. Obviously the JBS in 1963 would have no idea that life under LBJ would be even more liberal. So LBJ's term cannot be used as an argument of what that JBS was thinking in 1963.

Further, their whipping up hatred for JFK at every turn was the motor that energized the more radical rightists like the Ku Klux Klan, the Minutemen and the mercenaries that ultimately supported ex-General Walker -- a radical leader among the JBS.

The JBS-inspired murderers of JFK were dreamers -- they were true-believers -- they were convinced that by killing JFK and blaming a Communist, that America would immediately invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro.

We cannot ascribe foreknowledge to them about LBJ's term. They probably thought LBJ would have to follow the American people in their demand for Fidel's head. They were wrong -- and they lost their fevered bid for power.

The main consequence was that most Americans didn't immediately assume it was Fidel Castro. They waited for the FBI to tell them what happened. When Hoover told them it was a Lone Nut, everybody breathed a sigh of relief -- Fidel Castro, of course, but also the John Birch Society, because many Americans correctly suspected them in late November 1963.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - thanks for the response. I understand your argument about exceptionalism, and I agree that my choice of the word 'conventional' wasn't a good one. A question for you - do you think all conspiracies to commit murder are discovered? Of course many murders go unsolved, but they might or might not be conspiracies. Many murders are called suicide when the evidence suggests otherwise. One prominent example pertinent to this discussion is Henry Marshall. His death was ruled a suicide, but many believe that Mac Wallace, at the behest of LBJ, murdered Marshall. When I look at all the parameters of that case, I come to the conclusion that Marshall was murdered by a conspiracy of at least two, and possibly more, since it is unlikely that LBJ called Mac Wallace and said 'do this for me'. LBJ had guys like Cliff Carter to do that kind of thing for him. At least that's my take. If Henry Marshall was murdered, it was a conspiracy, one that remains hidden from officialdom.

I think this goes to the heart of your dispute with Paul T regarding FBI files. We can never be sure we are getting the whole story, no matter how many documents they send us. So we are left having to read between the lines, or accept what files we see at face value. That's why I wish you would read a few books by authors who have gone to incredible lengths to decipher CIA files and who are very careful in their analyses. Its eye opening.

I think the argument that the JFK conspiracy could not have been large because it would have fallen apart, or because the planners would have known it was dangerous to their longevity to involve too many people and therefore would have kept it small, may in this case be wrong despite your arguments and the weight of official history. We cannot know for sure how many large conspiracies go uncovered. We only know the ones that break down. And when you add up the dozens of suspicious deaths and the people that did talk on their deathbeds or to their children or wives... Is there a point when too many coincidences add up to something other than coincidence? If there is one thing most of us on this board share, its the belief that too many coincidences equals conspiracy.

[David G. Healy]

...

If there is one thing most of us on this board share, its the belief that too many coincidences equals conspiracy.

Indeed, lone nuts can NOT accept that logic, it's simply against their faith. Excellent postings in this thread, Paul....

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

...Regarding FBI files...We can never be sure we are getting the whole story, no matter how many documents they send us. So we are left having to read between the lines, or accept what files we see at face value. That's why I wish you would read a few books by authors who have gone to incredible lengths to decipher CIA files and who are very careful in their analyses. Its eye opening.

<snip>.

I agree with you here, Paul B., and I've been reconsidering some of your arguments about a CIA plot.

For one thing, your views coincide with John Newman's, whose views largely coincide with Fletcher Prouty, who was portrayed as "Mister X" (played by Donald Sutherland) in the 1991 Oliver Stone film, JFK.

Oliver Stone relied quite a bit on Fletcher Prouty's viewpoint -- and with plenty of good reason, because Prouty had a bird's eye view of Black Ops during his long service at the Pentagon. In Prouty's view, the modus operandi of the CIA was revealed at every turn in the JFK assassination. The professional "mechanics" used for the shooting; the carefully groomed "patsy" to take the blame, and the elimnation of the patsy ASAP after the assassination; this was only the start.

The standing down of local troops, the paucity of military presence in Dallas that day, the choice of Dealey Plaza, for its bowl shape, slow traffic, high buildings, grassy knoll and fewer witnesses, and the loss of telephone service in Washington DC at the time of the assassination -- this was uncanny.

Yet when he heard that JFK was killed, Prouty was in New Zealand and he immediately read a polished newspaper story about Lee Harvey Oswald, complete with a full bio and a studio photo, before Oswald was even charged with the JFK assassination! All these "coincidences" convinced Fletcher Prouty that a conspiracy involving the CIA was afoot.

When it was time to release the movie, JFK, I believe that Fletcher Prouty might have been the summit of insight on the JFK assassination, and so Oliver Stone was in fine company. In the 22 years since that movie came out, however, we've received more information (e.g. facts about how JFK and RFK controlled Operation Mongoose).

I'm pleased, for example, that Peter Dale Scott was willing this year to shine a skeptical light on John Newman's claims about the Oswald-Kostikov reports out of Mexico City. This would have been the smoking gun, if Newman was totally correct in his claims. But there is room for doubt in Newman's story. And Fletcher Prouty never tried to identify the GROUND CREW beyond the abstract term, "the mechanics."

Peter Dale Scott cast a little doubt on Newman's account (and thus Prouty's) by suggesting that the Oswald-Kostikov reports out of Mexico City might possibly have been based on authentic reports, and not CIA fictions.

I note here that Harry Dean's memoirs also place Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, not as a Communist, but as a Fake Communist -- somebody who was working for a conspiratorial cabal that convinced Oswald to pretend to be a Communist in New Orleans and also in Mexico City -- where he would get lots of photographs and government attention.

Peter Dale Scott's recent doubts about the CIA control of the Oswald-Kostikov pretense never mention Harry Dean in that regard -- but Scott is able to see that there is not enough hard evidence to make a final conclusion that the CIA invented the Oswald-Kostikov myth. That opens the door to the possibility that Oswald himself (at the urging of his cabal) made a big show and a big fuss about getting into Cuba as a fake FPCC officer, and a card-carrying member of the Communist Party who was willing to "kill JFK" for delaying his entry into Cuba.

If so, then Newman was mistaken, and Harry Dean's scenario will bear more weight.

Failing to get into Cuba, Lee Harvey Oswald spent some extra time in Mexico. Doing what, exactly? The information is sparse, but we have some possible leads from Harry Dean's memoirs -- he would have been in the company of Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gabby Gabaldon, says Harry Dean. IMHO it's worth the effort to look further in this direction, because Harry Dean attempts to illuminate the GROUND-CREW for us, and even speculates about the "mechanics."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 10, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

Robert Welch made the following comments to the first meeting of the JBS National Council (January 1960) in Chicago:

“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

<snip>

This quotation from Robert Welch, only months after General Edwin A. Walker joined Welch's so-called John Birch Society, adequately proves that Welch was a traitor to the USA, and should have been arrested and tried as a traitor during the Cold War.

Eisenhower's failure to silence Welch, and JFK's failure to silence Welch, enabled a grass-roots groundswell in the USA that encouraged the true-believers in Welch's claptrap to successfully assassinate JFK.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you obviously have no understanding of American law or political values. We do not criminalize political thought in our country--no matter how obnoxious or disgusting.

However, if one wanted to scour every statute ever written in an effort to find something to bring Welch to trial, the only plausible possibility would be sedition (not treason) as was attempted during the 1940's during what became known as the Mass Sedition Trial. However, the basis (at that time) for the charge was a conspiracy to undermine the morale of troops during wartime and cause armed revolt. Significantly, even that farce was recognized in time for what it was and charges against the "conspirators" were ultimately dropped.

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

ALL conspiracies are populated by actors who do not wish to be detected.

ALL conspiracies involve secrecy and deception.

ALL conspiracies use methods to hide and protect the conspirators and thwart penetration by outsiders

ALL conspiracies have had defectors or disillusioned participants or witnesses that have come forward to expose the conspiracy.

<snip>

This is obviously false. Every authentic Presidential assassin in US history has jumped before the crowd to announce why he killed the President, what his politics were, and tried to advance his political cause in this way.

Only skulking cowards -- like those in the John BIrch Society that killed JFK (IMHO) -- hid in the bushes and denied any responsibility for what they did. They were hoping that America would invade Cuba on their behalf -- but it took only a few hours for the US government to figure out their stupid plan and undermine them. After that the yellow-stripe down their backs could be seen sinking back into their suburban living rooms, watching television.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Obviously false? Which criminal conspiracy are you referring to?

Wikipedia has put together a list of "notable political conspiracies". Perhaps Paul would care to tell us which ones (listed below) involved no secret plots and no actors who attempted to hide their plotting before committing the actual act?

Consider, for example, the extraordinary lengths to which the Watergate conspirators went to shield its participants. And they were not even planning murder.

Apparently Paul cannot even employ rudimentary logic. The only realistic prospect for successfully carrying out any criminal act is if you are not caught before committing it...right?

So, obviously, a group of conspirators does NOT publicly broadcast not only its intent to (for example) murder someone but also reveal the time and place and methods which they will used to accomplish the murder (or other criminal act). How can Paul be blind to such a self-evident principle behind all criminal activity?

Notable political conspiracies

1st century BC - Catiline conspiracies

44 BC - Liberatores plot assassination of Julius Caesar to restore Roman Republic

AD 65 - Pisonian conspiracy

Late 15th century Pazzi conspiracy, which included the Pope

1506 - Conspiracy against the life of the brothers Alfonso I d'Este, Duke of Ferrara and Cardinal Ippolito d'Este, coordinated by their half brother Giulio d'Este and full brother Ferrante d'Este

1570 - Ridolfi plot against Elizabeth I of England

1583 - Throckmorton Plot to murder Elizabeth and replace her with her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots

1586 - Babington Plot, second major plot against Elizabeth, that led most directly to execution of Mary, Queen of Scots

1603 - Main Plot to remove James I of England and enthrone Arbella Stuart

— Bye Plot, leads to the execution of Sir George Brooke

1605 - Gunpowder Plot to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament as prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands, during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state; often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot; origin of Guy Fawkes Day

1788 - Anjala conspiracy

1865 - Abraham Lincoln assassination plot, to include assassination of cabinet members

1898 - The Dreyfus Affair, a coordinated attempt to falsely accuse Alfred Dreyfus of treason.

1903 - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, presented as authentic text by the Tsar's secret police efforts to foment anti-Semitism[1]

1932 to 1972 - Tuskegee syphilis experiment, to study natural progression of untreated syphilis in black men who thought they were receiving free health care

1936 to 1950 - Presumed General Motors streetcar conspiracy[2]

1938 - Presumed Hitler Youth Conspiracy, NKVD case in Moscow involving some 70 arrests and 40 executions of teenagers and adults, later found to be baseless[3]

1939 - Operation Himmler and its Gleiwitz incident, "False Flag" terrorism by Nazi Germany as pretext for invasion of Poland

— Shelling of Mainila, "False Flag" terrorism by USSR as pretext for Winter War

1943 - Bomb on Hitler's aircraft, an attempt on Adolf Hitler

1941 - British wartime plan PR4 to invade and to occupy neutral Norway also code-named "Stratford"

1941 - Bombing of Pearl Harbour, Hawaii by the Japanese

1944 - July 20 Plot, attempt to assassinate Hitler with suitcase bomb, and then use Operation Valkyrie to grab power

1948- to 1976 - Operation Mockingbird, until then CIA director George H. W. Bush prohibited paid media recruiting

1942 - Wannsee Conference, related to Final Solution of 3rd Reich Nazis

1945 - Operation Paperclip, extraction of top Nazi scientists (incl. SS Nazi Party members)

1948 to early 1980s Operation Gladio CIA-NATO 'stay-behind' preparations

1953 to ? - MKULTRA mind control program

1953 - 1953 Iranian coup d'état Anglo-American conspiracy under the names of 'Operation TPAjax' (CIA ) and 'Operation Boot' (MI6)

1954 - Lavon affair Operation Susannah, "False Flag" terrorism by Mossad

1960s - Project GAMMA allusion to attempts to assassinate Norodom Sihanouk, called Project CHERRY

1962 - Operation Northwoods - A rejected proposal for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere.

1968 - The Markovic affair, French Secret Service Gaullist plot destabilise future president Georges Pompidou

1969 to 1972 Secret war in Laos, and Operation Menu in Cambodia, concealed from Congressional oversight

1972 - Watergate scandal, burglary and cover-up scandals

1982 Brighton Bombings

1983 - October surprise

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

1987 - Iran-Contra Affair

— Various CIA involvements in overseas coups d'état

1991 - Nayirah testimony to rally U.S. public support to launch the Gulf War

1967 to 1974 - Strategy of tension theory in re series of incidents in Italy

2000s - Operation Merlin

2002 - Downing Street Memo

2002 September Dossier to justify Iraq invasion