Greg Kooyman

7 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

It was that Jim but I'm not at all bashful about the new book....so much crap has been written about this that its time to dig in and bring out the real history.  If there are any objections I'll stop posting about it here but of course the point is it can't be discussed until someone know its exists and actually reads it. Besides, it will give everyone a few new villains, including Richard Bissell and two Navy Admirals - all of whom lied to JFK.

I'll go even a step beyond that,  In Denial is also going to be important as background and context to understand the full nature and range of the assassination projects against Castro including the personnel that were most likely the ones turned against JFK in Dallas....how about that for a teaser.   The good news on that is nobody will have to pay for those new studies - they it will be freely available in the Wheaton Names White Paper that David Boylan and I will publish, and in my Thesis paper on the assassination.  Both of which I hope will be done and posted by the end of this summer.

No objections here Larry plug away.. 😉  I also am eager to see your White paper and Thesis.. 

6 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

The material Pease is referring to is going to in his next book. Unless I missed the big meeting here.

Hence my first post i this thread 'ere.

Bart-

I think what Tracy is referring to is the particular exchange between Dr. Newman and Lisa Pease on FB where Doug Campbell weighed in on the discussion.  Doug Campbell kept directing Lisa to read Dr. Newman's 3rd book and posted a link. Doug offered to buy the book for her if she would read it.   Lisa Pease responded by saying go ahead and buy it and send it to her.       

14 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

So I am not doing this to brag about my prescience, but I was interested in Leonov as of 2011 and, beyond that, about his possible impersonation as far back as 2015. I dug up emails I sent to Larry H, Bill S and Jeff M today.  It included some of the documents referenced in this thread.  The major addition for the past year or so are the Mexi photos which clearly show Leonov going into the Cuban consulate.  The reason I bring this up is the WHY I was interested in Leonov.  Here is what I wrote someone in 2011...

"Hi,

I have mentioned this to Larry, if for no other reason that on my last archive visit (and I still have to email you a bunch of docs, Larry) I found Church Committee interviews with Angleton where he made a serious effort to raise suspicions about Nikolai Leonov, Che's and possibly even Fidel's KGB case agent, and an operational chief for the KGB in the Western Hemisphere.  This triggered a memory, from Jon Lee Anderson's bio of Che.   Pages 759-60 have a footnote for page 614 (regarding a visit by Che to Moscow when his pal Leonov was not there, having been transferred to Mexico.)  The footnote reads as follows:

"In November of 1962, with his habitual knack of meeting historic personalities on the even of momentous events, Leonov came face-to-face with Lee Harvey Oswald.  Oswald had arrived at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and asked to speak to an official.  According to Leonov, he was called out to deal with him.  But when he saw that Oswald was both armed and agitated, Leonov decided he was "psychotic and dangerous," and says he quickly called other embassy personnel to help remove him from the premises.  Leonov says he was stunned when, soon afterward, he recognized  him as the man who had been arrested in Dallas, accused of murdering the American president. In a conversation about the various JFK assassiantion theories, Leonov dismissed the notion that Oswald might have acted on KGB orders, citing the "psychotic" behavior he had witnessed firsthand, and said that, theoretically speaking- even if the KGB had wanted to kill JFK- it would never have used someone so unbalanced and difficult to control."

...  I think dates are wrong, but it sounds very similar to the Nechiporenko incident.    If this happened, it is fascinating."

---  I think we have to factor in Angleton here in a big way.  And we also have to ask why three different people--   an ABC journalist spoke at Lancer several years ago detailing a third KGB general giving a nearly identical "I met with Oswald and he lost his xxxx" story as both Nechiporenko and Leonov above--   from the Russian side, all gave the same story but with a different protaganist.   I will let you folks gestate on both.

 

-Stu

 

Hi Stu,

I second Ron's compliments.  It's good to see you posting on this forum.   I hope all is well with you.  

On 1/17/2020 at 2:57 PM, Matt Allison said:

So I believe the pictures below were given by the Cuban government to the HSCA. The one on the left certainly appears to be Nikolai Leonov. Considering that he was well known to the Cuban government, I'm not sure what message Castro was telegraphing by giving it to the HSCA and saying it was from their surveillance of Cuban embassy visitors.

I used to have background on the person on the right, but I don't remember the details, so can someone fill that in?

Not to throw a monkey wrench into the mix here, but didn't someone identify the person on the right as an individual named Claude Barnes Capehart?

Here's the thread I seem to remember that discussed this..

Ok, had I read Bill Simpich's post before sending this, I would have realized he identified the man on the right.  Sorry for the confusion...

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Greg,

Just happened to run across this:

THE ZAPRUDER FILM OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION (TAB 10 HOCH ME

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105733&relPageId=4&search=%22Alfonso_Rodriguez%22

 

Steve Thomas

Yep.  that's the link that David sent me.   Thanks Steve!

On 1/17/2020 at 4:39 PM, David Boylan said:

Greg,

 

Here - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105733&relPageId=4

Thanks David!

On 1/16/2020 at 12:11 PM, David Boylan said:

Steve,

It's interesting that Posada was active Army until 1966. In 1963 he was at Fort Benning with quite a few Cubans that ended up as part of the AMWORLD project like Felix Rodriguez, Luis Sierra, and Jorge Giraud. Posada was a member of JURE from 12/63 to 2/65. JURE/Manolo Ray were part of the "autonomous" operations being run by the CIA's Special Affairs Section (SAS) under Desmond Fitzgerald's Split the Regime project. AMWORLD/Artime was being run by Henry Hecksher. The JURE leg was being run by Alfonso Rodriguez and the AMLASH/Military officer coup was being run by Nestor Sanchez. (Rodriguez was later questioned as to why he showed the Zapruder film during a CIA training class when he became director of training.)

Back to Posada. Posada was recruited by CIA? ACSI? both? to run a training camp in Florida in early 1964. He was to train small groups of anti-Castro Cubans (JURE) to infiltrate Cuba along with Manolo Ray by May 26, 1964. Ray was to declare a new provisional government with backing by the US Government. This never occurred due to the ever happening "boat trouble." The camp was originally set up by Rogelio Cisneros, Silvia Odio's friend. 

 

Hi David,

You mention that Alfonso Rodriguez was questioned as to why he showed the Z film during a CIA training class.   That is absolutely intriguing to me.   Do you have a source you can share where you found this?   

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

And here we are just before delivery of the published report Sept 22, 1964.... and they are STILL justifying Mexico City

Am I seeing things or is that actually Anne Goodpasture and DA Phillips in the signature stamp...

And really... how hard is it for the CIA to secure a Visa application from a consulate in which they have numerous assets.... ??

Quite amazing that in Sept of '64 they are still looking at authenticating the paper and the typewriter... did they not believe Duran??

  (edit:  btw - thanks Jim...  the idea that no one was at the Cuban or Russian consulates/embassies and that these were all just stories is reinforced by the contemporaneous Summary reports from the LI- projects as well as the fact not a single word about "the American visiting the Embassy" is heard spoken among any of the half-to-a-dozen High ranking Russian "diplomats" who were being recorded at the time)

David,

I believe you are correct about the signatures of Anne Goodpasture and Phillips.  Also on this stamp is Allen White.   That would have been Dave Phillips supervisor at the time.   

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=255&relPageId=11&search=White

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I'd forgotten Angleton was mentioned in Flawed Patriot.  Prompted by Larry's answer to your question I re-read a few pages for the first time in years.

Harvey wrote Angleton a letter six days before he died thanking JJA for a letter from him.  Then railing about Colby "and the rest of them" caving to the Church Committee.   After he died Angleton gave the letter to Harvey's widow, minus one page dealing with sensitive information.

Two years later he wrote her a letter thanking her for a Christmas card and more.

Thanks Ron,

I have yet to put my hands on my copy of Flawed Patriot.   It deserves to be read again by me.   I did confirm in Stockton's footnotes that CG Harvey had said there were 2 "attempted break-ins"  to her home, and that she was quoted as saying to the effect that she knew that they were after Bill's papers and that she had burned all of them.   CG was also a former CIA employee so I believe her when she said she destroyed the papers. 

Yes.  I remember clearly in the book that Harvey's wife reported a break-in and papers were missing.  Definitely sounds like an Angleton inspired entry.   A lot less brazen that when Angleton visited Win Scott's wife and used a veiled threat of withholding Scott's pension unless the contents of his safe and files were given up.

18 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Greg, it is discussed and cited in NEXUS but the actual source is the excellent biography of William Harvey by Flawed Patriot by Bayard Stockton....based in documents and letters provided by Harvey's wife. Up to Stockton's work there had been a false narrative that the two men did not like each other and were either competitors or adversaries - Stockton's work totally put the lie to that.  We now know that Angleton assisted Harvey with his Castro assassination efforts and beyond that they appeared to have had some shared secret which we can only guess at.  I heartily recommend Flawed Patriot as required reading as it overturns a lot of the misconceptions about Harvey from the earliest years of JFK research.

-Larry,

I do have Stockton's book.   I got it and read it right when it came out.   It's been years since I read that book and recall that Stockton was a protege of Harvey, so it enabled him to gain the kind of access to Bill Harvey's wife that I don't believe other writers would have achieved.  I will have to go back and re-read the section you reference.  I remember Bayard Stockton did in fact talk about the Harvey /Angleton relationship, I just did not remember the reference to a letter talking about a secret.    Very interesting indeed.   Thanks for pointing it out for me!

Ron,

There is certainly speculation that the U.S. lured Soleimani to the negotiating table as a trap so they could kill him.   I am reading that Israel is wanting to distance itself from what Trump did but that is all smoke and mirrors in my opinion.   Thrice before Israel had sought out the U.S.  for permission to assassinate Soleimani, and the U.S. had resisted such requests. 

Larry,

This correspondence between Harvey and Angleton intrigues me.   Can you share with us the source of the letters you are talking about?   I had never heard about this before.  Forgive me if you have mentioned it in any of your books. 

And knowing that David Morales and Rip Robertson were tight and also drinking buddies, it boggles the mind to know what they would have discussed leading up to late 1963.

4 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

What's 2 votes out of a total of 207?  We've always been saying exactly the same things.

Greg said: that a significant amount of Democrats in both houses were hawkish on the Iraq War resolution. 

Yes 39% is significant, but where are they now? Just Joe Biden, right?

But I hope I've shown you the flip side, that the most powerful Democrats, including the current Speaker of the House and  a current strong 2020 Presidential candidate (Bernie Sanders) voted against it!

Yes you did show me the flip side.  😊   But Joe Biden was one of the Senate hawks as was Hilary Clinton at the time.  The Clinton's influence on the Democratic party is still being felt in 2020 in my view.  

15 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

It does get confusing Greg. What I said was this.

I wouldn't be too sure,  to give you some historical perspective, the Democrats in the House voted 128-81 against support of GWB proposed War on Iraq.

I was speaking specifically about the Democrats, and our figures are almost identical.Except you say 126-81

against.   I appreciate your work on the Democrat  roll call for the resolution, and I would add Nancy Pelosi, Gerald Nadler and Bernie Sanders as voting against the Iraq resolution. And now, I think you'll agree those are some prominent Democrats.

Often on conspiracy websites there's a tendency to confound issues by playing advanced chess rather than checkers. One event that could happen where all bets are off is if  Iran launches an attack on the U.S. at home.Then the pressure would be so great that the Democrats would not risk being seen as the Peace Party. It really is that simple.

Hi Kirk,

I think we are trying to say similar things, but my numbers came from Wikipedia..  I was wanting to point out that a significant amount of Democrats in both houses were hawkish on the Iraq War resolution. 

Wikipedia Quote:

Passage of the full resolution[edit]

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,^[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,^[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.^[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives[edit]

• 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
  • Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

United States Senate[edit]

 

Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, October 2002

• 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:

Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

• 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution were:

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

• 1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
• The only independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

4 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Robertson was not involved in AMWORLD per se, he was still operationally  involved in the infrequent and low key boat operations out of JMWAVE though 1963 and into 1964.   Probably his biggest operation of 1963 was the summer TILT mission with Pawley.  Although Morales did oversee some PM training for a couple of the senior AMWORLD people - Artime and Quintero - the lists of the activities in that training look more like organizational and logistics skills for covert ops, not the sort of tactical expertise which would be Robertson's strong suit.  Its possible Morales might have done the training himself.  David Boylan found the records on the content but it did not specify the trainer.

However Robertson was involved with Cuban volunteers that were recruited for AMWORLD in 1964, at least the ones that were picked for the  Angola rescue operations and CIA mission to Angola in 1963.  In doing so he met up with some of the former Bay of Pigs air unit that had been taken into the Makasi air project in Angola as well.

During the last half of 1963 Robertson appears to have had a great deal of free time on his hands.

Thank you Larry.   You know I embrace your theory on Rip's involvement in the Dallas event.   It is definitely interesting to know he had no official work going on in the last quarter of 1963.  

4 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

 

9 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Soleiman was Iran’s top military man, and a revered figure - not just famous, or accomplished, but revered - in what is known as the Arc of Resistance (the mid-east’s largely Shia resistance bloc allied against Zionist / US neo-conservative hegemonic ambitions). To put the possible  consequence of this assassination in perspective - the Israelis had long wished his demise but considered an overt move far too dangerous. Apparently this was the brainchild of SecState Pompeo and SecDef Esper, and sold to Trump as a quick fix. The leader of Hezbollah declared today all US military personnel legitimate targets until all US forces are expelled from the region. But US/NATO policy in the region starts from an assumption of effectively permanent force positioning.

Interestingly, Soleimani directed forces in alliance with America twice - in Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq against ISIS.

It’s not 2003 - the Arc of Resistance have extensive missile capability and now a revered martyr whose death will provide years of focussed motivation. Plus the Russians and Chinese are well-positioned to assume the mantle of rational alternative major players for the region.

Well said Jeff.  

I am sorry if this has been discussed on an earlier thread, but I am wondering if Rip Robertson was ever involved in doing any PM training for the AMWORLD project.  I know Carl Jenkins was overall in charge of the training as it pertained to Maritime logistical operations, correct?   I know that Larry Hancock has written that this project had limited CIA participation and even then, it was in an advisory, and logistics support capacity.   I guess I am asking if Rip would have been used  in any way given that by 1963 Mongoose was pretty much done.

Much thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this for me..

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I am curious how many posters here had heard of the assassinated Iranian prior to the drone attack. Maybe it doesn’t matter. I hadn’t. The War Machine went into full blown propaganda mode right after the assassination, making sure we all knew what an evil and dangerous leader their target had been. 

I agree with Greg that the Democrats usually sign on when consulted. 

I had heard of him, as he was initially mentioned about a year or two ago as being the one who headed up the Iranian guard who assisted the Iraqi government troops in taking back the towns in Iraq that were ISIS strongholds.   In the US mainstream media, he wasn't given much press, and then it was in a negative light if I recall.   

9 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As an opposition party, I see nothing unusual about Pelosi wanting to be informed before the assassination and then trying to nip in the bud Trump's war powers. Maybe we'll see some vote on it in the future and we'll truly see in numbers where the Democrats are at.

Greg, I wouldn't be too sure,  to give you some historical perspective, the Democrats in the House voted 128-81 against support of GWB proposed War on Iraq. Unfortunately at that time they were the minority party. They aren't now.

Hi Kirk,

Not being adversarial here, but to clarify, the House Vote was 128 votes Republican 81 votes Democrat in favor of going to war in Iraq.   The Nays were 26 votes Republican 126 votes Democrat  with 1 vote Independent.   That means 39% of House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution.  It was even worse in the Senate with 59% of the Democrats voting in favor.

Notable senators who favored going to war in Iraq include:  Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Diane Feinstein.   I'd say a fair amount of the senators on that list can be construed as Democratic party elites.   My point here is once again, that we do not have anyone in the MSM nor in the Democratic Party that is willing to go out on a limb and question our country's role in foreign policymaking in places like the Middle East, or anywhere we feel our foreign interests lie.   This country would never try to pull a regime change intervention in places like, Russia, China, or North Korea.   But de-stabilizing countries like  Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, etc., (countries without Nuclear missile capabilities) we seem to be all in.   

Again, just my two cents..and BTW I am a veteran with 10yrs of service in the Navy.  😉

On 1/5/2020 at 6:56 AM, Douglas Caddy said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-slams-white-houses-war-powers-notification-on-soleimani-strike/ar-BBYBpQQ?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=UE07DHP

What pisses me off about the Democratic Party is they are only upset that they weren't asked before Trump unilaterally assassinated Soleimani.  That just tells me that the Democratic Elites want war just a badly as the Republicans do...There is no real opposition to foreign wars in the country.   We are a War economy and have been since WWII.  It is a fact that the United States killed someone whom Israel has been asking the US  for permission to kill for years.. and people wonder why we are hated as a people around the world.   Assassinating Soleimani was the equivalent of murdering say Norman Scharzkopf right after the Persian Gulf War victory parade.   Soleimani was an icon in Iran who was instrumental in putting down ISIS in the region.   

I fear for the future of this country..

41 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I dont think they will be on Youtube but will be available from the CAPA website. you should ask CAPA.

Thank you for clarifying that point.  I will check their webpage for updates.

Does anyone know if any of the presentations that were made at this year's CAPA Conference in Dallas have been posted on Youtube yet?   I am particularly interested in Dr. Newman's new presentation regarding Antonio Veciana.

13 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

WOW! With critics like this, who would want to produce any kind of documentary-drama these days.

Where would we be without Stone, his creative license, craftsmanship and marketing know-how? 

JFK the Movie made you think. Why most of you are here.

David,

I don't think The Irishman is anywhere near the type of film that JFK was.   I happen to like Martin Scorsese movies in general.. I just don't like this one for the reasons I mentioned above.  For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Casino and Goodfellas..both are based on historical facts with a poetic license for taken for dramatic effect.   What I dislike about this movie, is that the entire story itself has been discredited as fiction.  I don't think we can say the same is true for JFK.   While Oliver Stone added elements for dramatic effect, the basic story line was closer to fact than fiction.  

I agree that "JFK" made a whole new generation stop and think about what happened in this country in 1963.  However, I doubt seriously that The Irishman will have the same type of impact on audiences.   Just my two cents...  😉