Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tim Gratz

Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza?

Recommended Posts

What is remarkable, of course, is the last post by Robert Charles-Dunne.

He claims there is evidence there was an internal coup but when I ask him to present such evidence, what does he give us? Zip. Nada. Nothing. And yet he accuses me of failing to provide evidence of Cuban complicity!

I will now demonstrate that Robert either a) does not know what he is talking about; or B) is deliberately not telling the truth here. It is hard to believe he is either ignorant or a xxxx. I will assume the former.

Here is what he said:

Since nobody has ever claimed that the alleged DGI operative in Dealey Plaza was either Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez, what do either of them have to do with this?

Robert surely knows that one of the books that suggests Cuban complicity in the assassination is Joseph Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA". Presumably, he cannot claim sufficient knowledge to argue against Cuban complicity without having read that book. Trento clearly posits that Gilberto Policarpo Lopez was a Cuban operative in Dallas. Moreover, if he has read any of the reviews of "Rendezvous With Death" he would know that that film suggests the same thing as Trento. And even the HSCA report suggests that Policarpo Lopez's travels around the time of the assassination were "troublesome".

For him to argue that I base my case on the possible presence of Raul Diaz in Dealey Plaza is simply disingenuous.

And listen to this: Robert claims that I was wrong, that the original source of the allegation that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza was not Veciana but rather a man named Abella. Well here is a cite to the Summary of the Veciana interview from the Cuban-exile website:

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_326-350/doc0329.html

Anyone can go to it and see that Veciana testified that HE spotted Diaz in a photo in Dealey Plaza. Shows how accurate Robert's posts are. Makes you wonder why he is so desparate to disprove possible Cuban complicity that he will twist the truth?

Read this comment I made that he includes in his post:

Does anyone know if Dr Manuel Abella is still alive? And query whether the Castro agent Abella thought he saw was the one Veciana testified to before the Church Committee? If so, Abella confirms Veciana. If not, it is possible Abella and Veciana are refering to two separate DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.

From Fonzi's book it is not clear whether Dr. Abella was refering to Diaz or a different Cuban intelligence agent (Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez?). To the best of my recollection, Fonzi never says that Abella identified the agent as Diaz. For all we know, Dr. Abella might not even have been sure of the name of the agent he recognized. But it is clear that Veciana specifically said that HE had seen Diaz in a photograph. Thus, if both Veciana and Dr. Abella are correct, one of two things must be true: either they both saw Diaz (essentially confirming each other (this would be true whether Dr. Abella could identify Diaz by name or not; or Veciana saw Diaz and Dr. Abella saw a second DGI operative.

I don't want to spend much more of my time debating this with Robert Charles-Dunne. It should be clear from the above that he misstates the facts and twists the facts. Again, as I noted before, the fact that he continually laces his posts with sarcasm and digs at me demonstrates, I suggest, the paucity of his argument. Advocates with a strong position rarely stoop to ad hominen attacks.

One last thing: absurdly, Robert expects that I should be able to PROVE why Rip Robertson was in Dealey Plaza (absurdly because as noted above there is now substantial reason to think he was not). This just shows Robert's mind-set: to him, a CIA agent is presumed guilty unless proven innocent. My point was simply that there is no basis to infer a sinister motive from the presence of a U.S. intelligence agent in Dallas provided a reasonable innocent explanation suggests itself. And one does. We know that in Miami the FBI (or SS I forget which) used deTorres to scan the crowds for Cubans (either pro- or anti-Castro) who might wish harm to Kennedy. Clearly the presence of a CIA agent in Dallas who had worked with the Cuban exiles (which would include Hunt, Robertson and Morales) could have been for the same purpose.

Robert, it is not my duty to PROVE that Robertson had a non-sinister reason to be in DP when there are plenty of innocent reasons he could have been there. If you want to suggest Robertson was there to assist an assassination plot in which he was a conspirator, the burden is on you to prove his presence there was sinister.

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]Veciana testified that HE spotted Diaz in a photo in Dealey Plaza. Shows how accurate Robert's posts are.

_________________________________________

Speaking of accuracy, perhaps you meant to say "...HE spotted Diaz in a photo taken in Dealey Plaza"???

_________________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is remarkable, of course, is the last post by Robert Charles-Dunne.

He claims there is evidence there was an internal coup but when I ask him to present such evidence, what does he give us? Zip. Nada. Nothing. And yet he accuses me of failing to provide evidence of Cuban complicity!

I will now demonstrate that Robert either a) does not know what he is talking about; or B) is deliberately not telling the truth here. It is hard to believe he is either ignorant or a xxxx. I will assume the former.

Here is what he said:

Since nobody has ever claimed that the alleged DGI operative in Dealey Plaza was either Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez, what do either of them have to do with this?

Robert surely knows that one of the books that suggests Cuban complicity in the assassination is Joseph Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA". Presumably, he cannot claim sufficient knowledge to argue against Cuban complicity without having read that book. Trento clearly posits that Gilberto Policarpo Lopez was a Cuban operative in Dallas. Moreover, if he has read any of the reviews of "Rendezvous With Death" he would know that that film suggests the same thing as Trento. And even the HSCA report suggests that Policarpo Lopez's travels around the time of the assassination were "troublesome".

For him to argue that I base my case on the possible presence of Raul Diaz in Dealey Plaza is simply disingenuous.

And listen to this: Robert claims that I was wrong, that the original source of the allegation that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza was not Veciana but rather a man named Abella. Well here is a cite to the Summary of the Veciana interview from the Cuban-exile website:

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_326-350/doc0329.html

Anyone can go to it and see that Veciana testified that HE spotted Diaz in a photo in Dealey Plaza. Shows how accurate Robert's posts are. Makes you wonder why he is so desparate to disprove possible Cuban complicity that he will twist the truth?

Read this comment I made that he includes in his post:

Does anyone know if Dr Manuel Abella is still alive? And query whether the Castro agent Abella thought he saw was the one Veciana testified to before the Church Committee? If so, Abella confirms Veciana. If not, it is possible Abella and Veciana are refering to two separate DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.

From Fonzi's book it is not clear whether Dr. Abella was refering to Diaz or a different Cuban intelligence agent (Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez?). To the best of my recollection, Fonzi never says that Abella identified the agent as Diaz. For all we know, Dr. Abella might not even have been sure of the name of the agent he recognized. But it is clear that Veciana specifically said that HE had seen Diaz in a photograph. Thus, if both Veciana and Dr. Abella are correct, one of two things must be true: either they both saw Diaz (essentially confirming each other (this would be true whether Dr. Abella could identify Diaz by name or not; or Veciana saw Diaz and Dr. Abella saw a second DGI operative.

I don't want to spend much more of my time debating this with Robert Charles-Dunne. It should be clear from the above that he misstates the facts and twists the facts. Again, as I noted before, the fact that he continually laces his posts with sarcasm and digs at me demonstrates, I suggest, the paucity of his argument. Advocates with a strong position rarely stoop to ad hominen attacks.

One last thing: absurdly, Robert expects that I should be able to PROVE why Rip Robertson was in Dealey Plaza (absurdly because as noted above there is now substantial reason to think he was not). This just shows Robert's mind-set: to him, a CIA agent is presumed guilty unless proven innocent. My point was simply that there is no basis to infer a sinister motive from the presence of a U.S. intelligence agent in Dallas provided a reasonable innocent explanation suggests itself. And one does. We know that in Miami the FBI (or SS I forget which) used deTorres to scan the crowds for Cubans (either pro- or anti-Castro) who might wish harm to Kennedy. Clearly the presence of a CIA agent in Dallas who had worked with the Cuban exiles (which would include Hunt, Robertson and Morales) could have been for the same purpose.

Robert, it is not my duty to PROVE that Robertson had a non-sinister reason to be in DP when there are plenty of innocent reasons he could have been there. If you want to suggest Robertson was there to assist an assassination plot in which he was a conspirator, the burden is on you to prove his presence there was sinister.

---------------------------------

Jesus H. Christ Gratz, what a FUBAR screwup by a whole crowd of scribblers and nagging bookreaders.

I posted long ago that then Sgt. Raul Diaz came by the "Eagle Trucking" office in the Marti Bldg. on SW 8th St. -- and when he reconized the "bossman" at his desk (next to mine & my brother's); he called me outside and urged that I never mention his visit [which was a few days after my HSCA testimony at the federal courthouse]. He recognized the Cuban "bossman" as a DGI agent (1978).

I was the one who took Fonzi to Veciana's house, and that was the singular reason that Tony cooperated.

It was Sgt. Raul Diaz who confirmed Juan Adames' having picked out TWO subjects photographed in DP as DGI/DSE agents !! When shown the same photos, Veciana agreed that these were ex-Cuban DIFAR (Confidential Section, Vedado, Habana) agents known to him during 1959-60, and who might have transferred from there to D.I.E.R.(G-2), and later to DGI/DSE.

Raul Diaz ultimately retired from the then Dade County Sheriff's Dept. (Metro Dade Police/Dept. of Public Safety) as a Lieutenant during the 1980s.

It remains an ongoing problem that: Neither Winslow, nor other self-styled "experts", can ever get the story straight. Just like Nigel Turner (Fayetteville, 2001), Winslow would go catatonic at any reference to the "Security Detail" at MIA on the afternoon of November 18th, 1963 -- WHY, because they are scared xxxxless of digging into that matter, as some of the participants are still alive and "very active".

Randy Owen, if you still live in Kitchener, Ontario; sent me an e-mail and I will hook you up with one of the guys who knows the details of the MIA matter -- and who still lives in Kitchener.

________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was Sgt. Raul Diaz who confirmed Juan Adames' having picked out TWO subjects photographed in DP as DGI/DSE agents !! When shown the same photos, Veciana agreed that these were ex-Cuban DIFAR (Confidential Section, Vedado, Habana) agents known to him during 1959-60, and who might have transferred from there to D.I.E.R.(G-2), and later to DGI/DSE.

Are there any details about which DP photo(s) showed the two DGI agents, and more particularly, which of the people in the photo are at issue and were so identified?

T.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gerry:

The Winslow web-site clearly states that Veciana had identified a Raul Diaz as a "Cuban spy". Moreover it appears that the material on the web-site is verbatim from the Church Committee interview with Veciana. (In other words, it did not originate with Gordon.)

So if there is a mistake about Diaz, don't blame me or Gordon. The fault would be with the Church Committee staff member who prepared the summary.

But, as usual, the information in your post is extraordinary! Good to hear from you again.

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Sgt. Raul Diaz who confirmed Juan Adames' having picked out TWO subjects photographed in DP as DGI/DSE agents !! (Gerry Hemming)

Is this the same Juan Adames (as the story goes) who told Rolando Otero that Bernardo De Torres knew Oswald?

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question, James!

Ditto, Tim C.

And I would add: Who showed the photos to Veciana?

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was Sgt. Raul Diaz who confirmed Juan Adames' having picked out TWO subjects photographed in DP as DGI/DSE agents !! When shown the same photos, Veciana agreed that these were ex-Cuban DIFAR (Confidential Section, Vedado, Habana) agents known to him during 1959-60, and who might have transferred from there to D.I.E.R.(G-2), and later to DGI/DSE.

Are there any details about which DP photo(s) showed the two DGI agents, and more particularly, which of the people in the photo are at issue and were so identified?

T.C.

---------------------------------

During 1983 I was a cellmate with Otero, and we had long conversations about some the the specifics of these matters. Fonzi got it wrong, and I told him (and Joe Gonzalez) in my office (the first time) that the guy at the Florida City Correctioal Institution (who ran his mouth) was JUAN ALDAMA. He was just one of the hundreds of Cubans that I had dealt with. Fonzi ignored my corrections, and the HSCA pogues scribbled down the erroneous crap.

[i used the ADAMES surname so as to place the matter in perspective.]

I again reminded Fonzi of this matter while he was assisting Twyman with my interviews (hours of pain, dealing with clueless people), yet he still never got any of the serious stuff correct !! Maybe he was afraid to violate his N.D.A. ??!!

Another thing that Fonzi will not comment upon: The photos were taken by "Operators" who had been "instructed" to be there, and "be-on-the-look-out" [b.O.L.O.] for the same Cubans that were purportedly a threat to JFK at the November 18th MIA visit.

We were "indirectly" invited to fly to Dallas to do the same activities that we had done at MIA, but by then -- we already had had enough of their bullxxxx games.

When I was given the opportunity to scrutinize said photos, I told them politely to "jam them", just as I almost did with Billings in Beverly Hills (1968) when he wanted the scoop on the "Saul" pics.

My sources told me that those photos are in the "Johns Committee" archives in Tallahassee, Florida -- and along with all of our "Missile Crisis" files; they all remain highly classified by the State Archivist.

[Florida has an "Open Records Act", but with hundreds of exceptions/exemptions, i.e.: cops names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc. !! However, Florida has no law even similar to FOIA/PA, and probably never will.]

Otero is back in the "Chain Gang", and as long as his memory remains a threat to "Bambi" Posada Carriles & Geo. "Shrub" Bush -- he ain't going anywhere soon !!

While working the Letelier matter, I told Propper and Barcella that absent a "roll-over" by "Benny" de Torres, the next most valuable informant was Otero (who was still at the D.O.C. Lake Butler Medical/Reception Center, Union County, Florida). But, they turned out to be scared xxxxless pogues, who dreaded going down that serious alley !!

________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is remarkable, of course, is the last post by Robert Charles-Dunne.

He claims there is evidence there was an internal coup but when I ask him to present such evidence, what does he give us? Zip. Nada. Nothing. And yet he accuses me of failing to provide evidence of Cuban complicity!

I will now demonstrate that Robert either a) does not know what he is talking about; or :angry: is deliberately not telling the truth here. It is hard to believe he is either ignorant or a xxxx. I will assume the former.

Here is what he said:

Since nobody has ever claimed that the alleged DGI operative in Dealey Plaza was either Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez, what do either of them have to do with this?

Robert surely knows that one of the books that suggests Cuban complicity in the assassination is Joseph Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA". Presumably, he cannot claim sufficient knowledge to argue against Cuban complicity without having read that book. Trento clearly posits that Gilberto Policarpo Lopez was a Cuban operative in Dallas. Moreover, if he has read any of the reviews of "Rendezvous With Death" he would know that that film suggests the same thing as Trento. And even the HSCA report suggests that Policarpo Lopez's travels around the time of the assassination were "troublesome".

Assertions are not evidence. We've been over this old ground a number of times in the past. Does Trento's book supply the documentary basis for making this claim, or just the claim? I'm not interested in what Trento "posits," only what he can prove. Without that proof - as in actual evidence - you're merely retailing a baseless contention wholesaled by someone else. Big deal. Yes, the HSCA found the Policarpo Lopez allegations "troublesome;" it concluded nothing from it, whereas you use it to suggest that the unproven has been proven. Pathetic.

For him to argue that I base my case on the possible presence of Raul Diaz in Dealey Plaza is simply disingenuous.

And listen to this: Robert claims that I was wrong, that the original source of the allegation that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza was not Veciana but rather a man named Abella. Well here is a cite to the Summary of the Veciana interview from the Cuban-exile website:

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_326-350/doc0329.html

Anyone can go to it and see that Veciana testified that HE spotted Diaz in a photo in Dealey Plaza. Shows how accurate Robert's posts are. Makes you wonder why he is so desparate to disprove possible Cuban complicity that he will twist the truth?

Again, another entirely incorrect interpretation which has already been hashed and rehashed sufficiently over the past year. As Tim well knows from the number of times it's been pointed out to him, the summary of an interview with Veciana is NOT from any testimony; that is Winslow's wholly inaccurate heading for what was clearly labelled by the staffer as what it was: a summary of interviews.

As to the more important point of who allegedly spotted the man alleged to be "Diaz" in the photograph that nobody can find, let's look at Fonzi's book, shall we? He was, after all, the man who conducted the HSCA interviews with Veciana and went to some trouble to confirm Veciana's allegations.

"One day [Veciana] told me he had been talking about it with a friend, Dr. Manuel Abella, and Abella recalled seeing a photograph of the crowd in Dealey Plaza taken just prior to the assassination. Abella thought the photo was in Life or Look magazine - he wasn't sure which - however, he recognized in the crowd the face of a man he knew from Cuba as a Castro agent......."

No mention of Veciana seeing any DGI agent in any photograph. Had he done so, and said so to Fonzi, no doubt they would have been poring over the same magazines at the library as Abella, as Fonzi described, in an attempt to find that photo. That didn't happen, for a reason. Moreover, if this was a fact testified to by Veciana, Fonzi no doubt would have seen fit to mention that in his book, rather than use Veciana to misattribute it to Abella.

So, we have Tim Gratz militating strongly for non-existent evidence from a photo that nobody can find, misattributing the source for the contention, claiming it came from "testimony" when it did not, citing a summary of interview material that was plucked from an HSCA 'miscellaneous' dump bin and labelled as "testimony" by somebody who should both know better, and have re-labelled it accurately since it was drawn to his attention more than six months ago.

That's your "evidence?"

Read this comment I made that he includes in his post:

Does anyone know if Dr Manuel Abella is still alive? And query whether the Castro agent Abella thought he saw was the one Veciana testified to before the Church Committee? If so, Abella confirms Veciana. If not, it is possible Abella and Veciana are refering to two separate DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.

From Fonzi's book it is not clear whether Dr. Abella was refering to Diaz or a different Cuban intelligence agent (Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez?). To the best of my recollection, Fonzi never says that Abella identified the agent as Diaz. For all we know, Dr. Abella might not even have been sure of the name of the agent he recognized. But it is clear that Veciana specifically said that HE had seen Diaz in a photograph. Thus, if both Veciana and Dr. Abella are correct, one of two things must be true: either they both saw Diaz (essentially confirming each other (this would be true whether Dr. Abella could identify Diaz by name or not; or Veciana saw Diaz and Dr. Abella saw a second DGI operative.

There is, of course, a third alternative which Tim Gratz refuses to acknowledge, let alone confront. Veciana was misquoted in the interview summary, when he said what he also told Fonzi: ".. [Veciana] told me he had been talking about it with a friend, Dr. Manuel Abella, and Abella recalled seeing a photograph of the crowd in Dealey Plaza taken just prior to the assassination..." Having been misconstrued in that summary - as is clear from Fonzi's book - Gratz now argues that both men made the claim, and without having found a single photo that depicts what either man might have said, this is now probative evidence that there may have been two such DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.

At which point we have yet another post from Gerry Hemming claiming that there were two DGI agents spotted in a Dealey Plaza photo. Only this time, the man "confirming" this as fact is Raul Diaz, the man whom Manuel Abella insisted he had seen in such a Dealey Plaza photo. Does Gerry have this photo? No. Has he seen this photo? No. Can he tell us who has this photo? No.

Clowntime is over boys.

I don't want to spend much more of my time debating this with Robert Charles-Dunne. It should be clear from the above that he misstates the facts and twists the facts. Again, as I noted before, the fact that he continually laces his posts with sarcasm and digs at me demonstrates, I suggest, the paucity of his argument. Advocates with a strong position rarely stoop to ad hominen attacks.

And people who claim to have evidence for a contention can usually provide it when called upon to do so. After a year of this nonsense, you continue to peddle the same fictions as fact, and apparently feel no embarassment about your failure to post what you insist is important proof, despite never having seen it, and being unsure who has seen it.

One last thing: absurdly, Robert expects that I should be able to PROVE why Rip Robertson was in Dealey Plaza (absurdly because as noted above there is now substantial reason to think he was not). This just shows Robert's mind-set: to him, a CIA agent is presumed guilty unless proven innocent. My point was simply that there is no basis to infer a sinister motive from the presence of a U.S. intelligence agent in Dallas provided a reasonable innocent explanation suggests itself. And one does. We know that in Miami the FBI (or SS I forget which) used deTorres to scan the crowds for Cubans (either pro- or anti-Castro) who might wish harm to Kennedy. Clearly the presence of a CIA agent in Dallas who had worked with the Cuban exiles (which would include Hunt, Robertson and Morales) could have been for the same purpose.

Robert, it is not my duty to PROVE that Robertson had a non-sinister reason to be in DP when there are plenty of innocent reasons he could have been there. If you want to suggest Robertson was there to assist an assassination plot in which he was a conspirator, the burden is on you to prove his presence there was sinister.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in this regard, as I've never suggested you should prove why Robertson was in Dealey Plaza. Apparently, you've read somebody else's post and either misrecalled who made the point, or misattributed it to me.

And Gerry, if your Kitchener "source" is who I think it to be, he can't be of help to you since he was demonstrably imprisoned by Castro while Kennedy was touring Florida. If he's a different man, then Kitchener must just be crawling with former players. Quite a distinction for a small town a million miles from the action of back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otero is back in the "Chain Gang", and as long as his memory remains a threat to "Bambi" Posada Carriles & Geo. "Shrub" Bush -- he ain't going anywhere soon !! (Gerry Hemming)

During his trial, Otero threw "Eduardo's" name into the mix as well.

FWIW.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otero is back in the "Chain Gang", and as long as his memory remains a threat to "Bambi" Posada Carriles & Geo. "Shrub" Bush -- he ain't going anywhere soon !! (Gerry Hemming)

During his trial, Otero threw "Eduardo's" name into the mix as well.

FWIW.

James

--------------------------------

And here we've all been bullxxxxted that the "Village Idiot Sissy" is SO WELL READ. What a farce !!

Like I would give this xxxxx/Nagster a contact, sure -- right after I pass it on to the Khazar Weberman, yeah , like such a silly sister -- NOT.

The guy up north happens to be amongst one of Bill Turner's favorite Operators. And I don't need "help" on

anything relevant to the JFK matter, so quit the amateur "Pogue-Fisher" postings !! Friends, family and associates can't believe that mere bookreaders & ill-informed scribblers are attempting to "debate" a material witness in the case.

"Nana-Noo-Noo-Nay"!! -- I saw a movie, read some "fiction" books, and tabloid rags, NOW I ARE A EXPERTY-RESEARCHER-GIRLYMAN !! Blee-dat MoFo.

Now, back to James. Otero was the youngest of the Bay of Pigs Brigade 2506, and he jumped out of that Curtiss C-46 right behind Angelo -- and the "DZ" (Drop Zone") was near Jaguey Grande. They were forced to jump prematurely because they had one of Fidel's Brit MKII "Sea Fury" fighters on their tail, blazing away with 20MM. The pilot of the C-46 was a Nicaraguan named Ulloa.

The pilot of the "Sea Fury" trying to shoot them down was his brother, Carlos Pedro "Pollo" Ulloa, who was himself shotdown by the Chinaman cook onboard the S/S Houston, manning a .50 cal. AAA machinegun.

The C-46 headed for the Houston for that very purpose -- getting cover, and getting the fighter off of his tail

at the last minute, after dropping all of the paratroopers. "Pollo" Ulloa caught rounds in the cockpit and cartwheeled into the water off of Playa Giron.

"Pollo" was one of my Sandinista trainees, and had begged me to take him to Honduras/Nicaragua, and the guerrilla fighters in the mountains ("Las Segovias") when I was getting ready to leave Havana. He hated the Communists, and wanted out of Cuba -- He and the two other F-47 pilots, Diaz and Alfaro Galo.

When Mario Zuniga landed the phony FAR B-26 [FAR #933] at MIA on Saturday morning (April 15th, 1961),

his cover story involved incriminating Alfaro Galo and Domingo Diaz as fellow Rebel Air Force defectors. They were his alleged "co-conspirators and were in on the "defection-and-bomb-the-air-bases-conspiracy" ("conspiracion"). Zuniga had been briefed on this by a CIA PM/Case officer (ex-Naval Aviator) by the name of "Chick".

I raised hell about this immediately with Chavez and Morales, but they insisted that the orders came directly from dictator Somoza, who naturally had a "hard-on" against the former Nic/Air Force pilots who had defected during 1958. The theory was that: if the initial strikes didn't take out the 17 "very deadly" F-47 "Thunderbolts" parked at the Havana air base ("B.A.M. Ciudad Libertad"), the invasion would be in a "world-of-xxxx". The CIA pogues foolishly thought that Fidel would imprison them instantly, and this would eliminate the only guys who dared fly the "Thunderbolts".

However, none of the F-47s parked at the Havana air base were flyable, as they needed mechanical tweeks. There were only 3 F-47s still flyable, and two were parked on sugar plantation airstrips, defending against Howard K. Davis' sugar-cane firebombers from Miami. The third was mine, (& Diaz's), and it was parked at my air base in Pinar del Rio (B.A.M. San Julian). It was slightly bruised from my having run it through the weeds on an aborted take-off back during early 1960. All of the Cuban pilots were deathly afraid of flying the F-47s, and there was no rush to perform a rather simple adjustment to the electric propeller control -- a 15 minute operation.

Had the F-47s been airworthy, and carrying their normal very heavy bomb and rockets loads, the BOP Brigade would have been finished the first day !!

The CIA ploy to get Alfaro Galo and Domingo Diaz locked up failed completely, and they, like "Pollo" -- took to the air and fought like true warriors against the "CIA Mercenarios" !! Moreover, I told Chavez & Morales that B-26 FAR #933 was going to be found out as being a phony within hours !! This was because: B-26 #933 was at BAM San Antonio de los Banos, undergoing a 1,000 hour mechanical check, and was halfway dismantled. Even more stupidly, anybody with a camera could have taken a "Brownie" photo of that bomber from the nearby highway, and during any day of the week -- if they had the balls ??!!

____________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Friends, family and associates can't believe that mere bookreaders & ill-informed scribblers are attempting to "debate" a material witness in the case. "Nana-Noo-Noo-Nay"!! -- I saw a movie, read some "fiction" books, and tabloid rags, NOW I ARE A EXPERTY-RESEARCHER-GIRLYMAN !! Blee-dat MoFo.

I wonder what Gerry Hemming's "friends, family and associates" think of his assertions in the 1977 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview, entitled "The Fifth Estate?"

I had been to the White House earlier that year [1963], in the East Wing [the First Lady's wing] where I had an interview with the military aide to the President, Gen. Clifton.... I had [also] been to the Pentagon, State Department and what have you ... in 1963.... I dealt with very prominent people ... there was constant comments about what to do as a solution to the Kennedy problem. [The talk was] why waste time and lives in Cuba when the real problem is in the White House?... Only one time was there money on the table. We got out of those other meetings gracefully without discussing money ... just techniques.... My name had been thrown into this.... I was [a] prime shooter. My crew was the only capable team in the United States.... This [involvement] was from day one ... and it upset me to a great degree.... Since then I made it a point to find out who did what and who didn't do what.... I know personally of more than one group who took credit, collected money but ripped them off. They didn't do the job. It was just a stroke of luck for them.

Hemming swings wildly back and forth between bragging about his treasonous subversion and ranting about people with enough common sense to insist that he come clean on his years of sabotaging the pursuit of truth or be considered not just a braggadocious imposter, but a distinctly unpatriotic one. One can't expect to be treated as a credible "material witness" when there is such a record of duplicity and money-grubbing history-whoring as that which Gerry Hemming has created for himself. If his friends, family and associates believe his every word should be taken at face value, given the record, then they have not developed faculties of critical reason.

T.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, you may be correct that Robertson was in Dealey for innocent reasons. Your dismissal of the value of his presence is wrong-headed, however. Robertson was a close associate of David Morales, who reportedly bragged about taking care of Kennedy. If a close associate of Marcello, who also is reported to have bragged about taking care of Kennedy, was photographed in Dealey, would you be equally as dismissive?

Your relentless defense of the CIA is transparent. Why is it so unthinkable that someone within the government, who trained people to kill, would turn around and use his skills against the President? Didn't Wilson work for Qaddafi? Didn't Ames go to work for the Russians? Didn't Shackley and too many others sell themselves to corporate interests after their days with the company were over? Why is it so unthinkable that an agent would help kill the President? I mean, haven't cops taken bribes? Haven't cops become hit men for rich criminals? What makes the CIA so different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, it would be easy to dismiss what Morales said as braggadocia. We know there have been people who have falsely confessed to killing Kennedy.

Morales was on the ground floor of the AMTRUNK operation, so he knew the Kennedy administration was doing more about the Cuban problem than was publicly acknowledged. Given his position in JM/WAVE, he surely must have been witting of the planned "palace coup". No one witting of the AMWORLD plot would have wanted to kill JFK immediately before its implementation--if the person truly favored regime change in Cuba.

Could there have been "rogue CIA agents" involved in the assassination? As you argue, some CIA agents such as Morales were trained to kill. I do not deny that possibility exists that a CIA agent "went bad" but I think the new revelations about AMWORLD make such a scenario unlikely.

Even if Morales was involved (indicting him on the basis of one drunken statement) that is insufficient to involve Robertson in the assassination simply because, as you assert, he was a "close associate" of Morales. As active as Morales was in the CIA and among the anti-Castro Cuban exiles, I am sure there are hundreds who could be considered his close associates but surely they were not all privy to the plot.

Liberals such as yourself were incensed by things such as the Hollywood blacklist, arguing that one could not draw conclusions about a person's patriotism simply because he hung with Communists. Surely it is as reprehensible, if not more so, to label someone a murderer and a traitor because of ONE of his associations.

I cannot conclude on the basis of the evidence that the CIA as an institution sponsored the assassination. Nor is there any evidence that any of its operatives were involved. But I have condemned top-level officials of the CIA for their involvement in acts that are morally outrageous (the plots to kill Castro for instance) as well as fundamentally stupid (involving the mafia in such plots, thereby exposing the entire government to blackmail. By no means can I be considered a "relentless defender of the CIA".

I consider you a fair man. Let me ask you the following. If you were on a jury trying Morales for the assassination, and the ONLY evidence against him was that single statement, would you find that evidence met the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I sure don't think I would--particularly given Morales' involvement in the secret JFK war against Castro.

Edited by Tim Gratz

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

×
×
  • Create New...