Tim Carroll

Especially interested in the names of the people concerned and any information on individual operations.As you know, part of the operation was a spin from the 5412 group. Operatives would come and go as specialized support personal and they were controlled and dispatched by the 40 group which was part of the 5412 group. In reality there was no covert team named as "Operation 40" that I am aware of and as some have claimed. Liberties have been taken for whatever reasons and 40 has been cast into a different function than what it really was. Some of the operatives that from time to time did launch missions in behalf of the 40 or 5412 were mostly from the "School of The America" and other specialized operational personal and their training commands. Kind of like TDY ( Temp Duty assignments). As to the mechanics and various operations I can only name about four I was associated with and those are questionable as being dispatched solely by OPS-40 command and cleared by the 5412 Group. Our Teams were dispatched from the Pentagon with logistical support gave by the CIA. In most cases you could say ".. they were not really "CIA" operations, but in reality Military INTEL OPS with CIA logistical support..." At any rate the operations were "layered" and numerous "Locks" and "cut-outs" were assigned to protect the knowledge of these operations and the operational personal. Regarding Operation 40, I have previously posted about an Operation 40 plan to manipulate the politics of post-Castro Cuba following the Bay of Pigs: "The Bay of Pigs planning also included manipulating the politics of the Cuban exiles in the aftermath of what was hoped to be a successful takeover. Even many of the Cuban exiles would have been shocked at how far some in the United States were willing to go in this regard. The President’s directive that the exile leadership include more people from the left-of-center orientation to counter charges that the exiles were nothing more than Batisteros in disguise caused some dissension in the CIA’s ranks. E. Howard Hunt’s resentment of the change led him to “resign” or be “fired” from his job as Political Action Officer for the invasion, depending on who’s version one believes. He thought these changes amounted to a policy of Fidelismo sin Fidel, Fidelism without Fidel. Hunt’s political orientation, which was distinctly right wing, was far more amenable to Batistism sin Batista. One of the moderate Cuban leaders, stung by Hunt’s charge, stated: “I don’t know what it means to be a leftist. If it means to be in favor of all the people and for the welfare of the masses, then I am.” Hunt retorted: “Fidel Castro could not have phrased it better.” His ideology was reflected in a quote he was fond of citing: “The liberal’s arm cannot strike with firmness against communism . . . because the liberal dimly feels that in doing so he would be somehow wounding himself.” The right wing Cubans and those in the CIA like Hunt who were most sympathetic to counter-revolutionary politics did make contingency plans for the exiles’ leadership after the landing. “Operation 40 [a high level, government-connected Cuban exile group] called for assassinating the moderates after their return to the island following an invasion.” The U.S. supported the creation of a moderate provisional government during the planning, while its own agents were plotting to install a more right-wing one later. The moderates were intended to legitimize the efforts of the exile force while at the same time becoming targets themselves for some later murderous manipulation." The recently published book, Ultimate Sacrifice, makes its only mention of Operation 40 in the same context of manipulating the anti-Castro leadership. But what is so important about Tosh's post is the distinction that Operation 40 was a decisionmaking group, and did not include the operatives that were used. I have actually read that this offshoot of the 5412 Committee originally obtained its designation based upon the number of participants, but that it had quickly grown to include approximately 70 such decisionmakers. When we read that Marita Lorenz described the participants in the caravan to Dallas as members of Operation 40, I believe that creates a significant misunderstanding about the group's nature as compared with the mechanics employed for this or that purpose. Here's how Ultimate Sacrifice deals with the subject, pp. 394-395: "A White House memo shows that Kennedy officials only learned months after the Bay of Pigs that the CIA formed a small group called Operation 40 - which, according to some accounts, included Trafficante bagman Frank Fiorini - supposedly to assassinate more progressive elements of a new Cuban government. JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote a memo to Richard Goodwin about it, saying that 'liberal Cuban exiles believe that the real purpose of Operation 40' after the Bay of Pigs was to first 'kill Communists - and, after eliminating hard-core Fidelistas, to go on to eliminate first the followers of Ray, then the followers of Varona and finally to set up a right-wing dictatorship, presumably under Artime.' Newly released documents show that David Morales was involved with Operation 40." I believe that Waldron and Hartmann missed the mark with the mention of Frank Sturgis as a member, although according to Tosh's framework he could very well have been contracted for some Operation 40 task. The book goes on to mention that Cubela, "former leader of a rebel group called the DR," was on board prior to the Bay of Pigs in this scramble for leverage in the anticipated post-Castro period. EDIT: After posting the above, it occurred to me that the countervailing perception was inadequately represented. Many authors have, for example, included Felix Rodriguez as Operation 40. There have been photos posted of a "covert squad formed from Operation 40" (phraseology that doesn't conflict with the conception of a higher up, decisionmaking group) and an Operation 40 "reunion" (phraseology that does imply that Operation 40, or some similarly named offshoot, included mechanics. T.C.

If the person went west "B" from the south parking area and over the RR tracks then our driver, who was at the bottom of the hill "B" leading from the RR tracks, would have seen him, because that is the only location to get to this west muddy parking area from the RR tracks. We would have been right behind him perhaps one minute or two. We would have seen him walking in the area or getting into another near-by car if he had went over the same route Sergio and I had followed.... We did not see anything after the shooting that would cause us to look into this possibility at that time. It sounds so matter-of-fact when Tosh says, "We did not see anything after the shooting that would cause us to look into this possibility at that time." My understanding is that Tosh and Sergio needed to get their butts out of there, toot sweet! Their sense of what had just transpired was probably more informed, and therefore more immediately fearful, than even Oswald's. Just as the B&W Moorman is like a Rorschach test for the north knoll, Cancellaire is the same for the south knoll. I have seen and cannot dispute a number of images that are potentially valid. Here's a photo I took from the south side, precisely where John Dolva shows the isolate figure with partical face showing. A perfect straight-on shot. Al Carrier has argued, I believe, that in his view this trajectory best explains Kennedy's headwound and why the rear evulsion would have been on the right rear rather than left: T.C.

The combination of earwitness testimony and the number of wounds and missed shots leaves me no choice but to conclude that there was some silencing function used on at least some weapon in Dealey Plaza that day - Werbell was known as "The Wizard Of Whispering Death." T.C.

Admittedly, the film is not of sufficient quality to show the gunman tracking the target, but I do assert that a full viewing of the Nix film shows that after the headshot, the gunman is no longer in firing position, but rather turning to the viewer's left as though watching the limo depart the plaza. Regardless, the location of the Nix gunman isn't a matter of "placement," but rather that the morphing of the image into a photo of a shooter is phoney. There is a discussion about this same film on Lancer, where the Classic Gunman image has been discussed: http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...e=&topic_page=2 T.C.

There is a conflict in the understanding of McCloy's disarmament position with regard to the Limited Test Ban Treaty. One of history's great mysteries continues to be whether the U-2 was deliberately brought down by militarists on either or both sides to undermine the Paris Summit at which Eisenhower hoped to conclude a nuclear treaty they felt contained inadequate provisions for inspections and verification. Khrushchev's argument that the demand for more comprehensive inspections was a ruse to enable espionage contained a good measure of truth. I have difficulty believing that the motivation for Kennedy's murder would be his resistence to more substantive disarmament measures. The negotiations in 1963 were hung up on the number of annual inspections to be allowed. A comprehensive treaty had become politically unviable for both superpowers, and given the failure to obtain the requisite inspections in Cuba to formally end the Missile Crisis, the solution became a ban on atmospheric testing. While some may have considered this too little too late, the general disposition was that it was the first such treaty and highly significant to the environmental effects of testing, such as Strontium-90 in milk. It was also significant because it was the first substantive step back from the abyss of Cold War nuclear saber-rattling. At the time, there was no public criticism that Kennedy was being too intransigent; all of the criticism was from the right side of the political spectrum, which held that the test ban treaty would weaken the American position. It was during the negotiations about the numbers of inspections that McCloy took leave of the administration and his role as chief disarmament negotiator. Kennedy did not have the political power to obtain NATO support for a treaty with more teeth, a dynamic that would have been much worse if the Europeans had known about the Secret Deal to dismantle the NATO Jupiter missiles to settle the Missile Crisis. When Khrushchev asserted that Bonn was preventing Kennedy from agreeing to a nonaggression pact, the wily Soviet premier stated: "You conquered the Germans and now you are afraid of them." I agree! When McCloy left the Kennedy administration, he claimed that he was answering the call of business on behalf of "oil clients." T.C.

While I appreciate Tim Gratz's recognition that I have made "useful contributions to this Forum," I'm led to wonder, however, about the usefulness of pondering matters of opinion and historical concealment when the establishment of facts with hard evidence is disregarded. I'm not talking about the kind of evidence that would lead someone to say, Castro did it based on this, or John McCloy did it based on that. I'm talking about simple factual matters such as the following: Additionally, when the accusation that Plumlee had never testified under oath, and documentation is posted of reimbursement for costs related to being a Senate Foreign Relations Committee "witness," the squirmy response was that many such witnesses don't actually tesitify, they're merely "Junketeers." Silly. Having made a personal effort to provide evidence that one would think to be significant, and after so much effort on this forum to nail down whether or not Hemming can be believed about matters of his-story, I'm surprised that fact rather than opinion counts for so little. To reiterate, one is entitled to an opinion about historical evidence and interpretation. But for Tim Gratz to say he tends "to agree with Gerry re Plumlee" based upon Roselli's supposed whereabouts on a certain day, skips the basics. Discounting Roselli's role, as an example, has nothing to do with Hemming's inability to provide the correct time of day, so to speak. It has nothing to do with Hemming being unwilling to name a single publication in the past forty years that he can support as coming closest to the mark. It has nothing to do with him being caught red-handed stating falsehoods about a forum member, dragging family members into it and making threats. When a falsehood is proven, Hemming depends upon a lack of follow-up and simply spins a new yarn, never being challenged about the previous. Perhaps it's my mistake to have believed that an effort to provide verifiable documentation of fact mattered more than it appears. It's an unfortunate truism that throwing feces against a wall, knowing that some will stick, is an effective tactic. I just didn't expect it to be as effective here, in the face of an effort to refute with actual evidence. I am hamstrung from expressing myself colorfully, while Hemming is not. Words are not available to me that he freely uses. It's one thing for John Simkin to talk about the best defense being an offense, but especially regarding forum rules of conduct, that shouldn't be the most effective approach here among discerning people.... It's a Swift Boat Veterans For Truth level of history. At a minimum, the following should be a consideration for the moderators: T.C.

So here the documentation showing the Senate voucher for bringing Plumlee to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is characterized as only proving that Plumlee was given a "Junkateer" trip. But as for bleating about "BEEF !! NOT A WORD UNDER OATH !!" there is now the McCarthy-like shifting ground argument that "unsworn" statements are penalized even worse than sworn statements (assumedly when they are proven false): As far as I know, all Senate testimony has required the oath until just recently, when Gerry's Republicans insisted that the big oil war profiteers not be sworn. That ringing noise in Gerry's head is probably the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth calling; he's their kind of guy.The penalty for "unsworn" statements is double that of sworn statements, and has been the case since 1867. Those who aid and/or abett are now charged as "principals", rather than as accessories, and suffer the same penalties as the "principal" offender.I suppose I should be tremblingly grateful for Hemming's legal advice as to what kind of legal jeopardy I may be in if I am construed to be one of Plumlee's "accessories." I remember past circumstances where mere mentions of lawsuits were a concern for forum moderators, but threats of criminal troublemaking go unmolested. A reading of this very thread clearly demonstrates the overt obstructionism being practiced here. Plumlee initiated a thread about Martino and it was immediately turned into an attack against him, including identification of Plumlee's family members - a new low.T.C.

DGI stands for Dirección General de Inteligencia, which is basically Castro's intelligence agency. The idea that Trafficante was a DGI asset is an extremely relevant subject of interest. T.C.

I respectfullly disagree, Tim. I value both Hemming's and Plumlee's input. The issue is no longer whether someone can sit on the fence, having their cake and eating it too. There is a one-sided and aggressive campaign being waged by Hemming to silence Plumlee. Ask Hemming about the White Hand and you get an attack on Plumlee. Ask about JM/WAVE and you get an attack on Plumlee. Allowing that sort of aggression to dominate results in the bully controlling the history, the loudest voice to win the argument. Doesn't posting documents rather than provably false accusations count for anything? T.C.

As far as I know, all Senate testimony has required the oath until just recently, when Gerry's Republicans insisted that the big oil war profiteers not be sworn. That ringing noise in Gerry's head is probably the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth calling; he's their kind of guy. T.C.

Here is a copy of the page showing the award of benefits from a December 29, 2004 document.Even when in full attack mode, Hemming can't address an issue straightforwardly or credibly. He did say there would be no DD-214, and that was proven to be false. He did say that "Plumlee accrued no right to any benefits whatsoever," and that was proven to be false. He did say that Plumlee only had "4 months of service," and that was proven to be false. He did insinuate that Plumlee was in the "slam" at least five (5) times previously, and now he avoids confirming his own meaning when asked directly (assumedly because it's false). As Robert Charles-Dunne expressed so well, "Gerry has made some sweeping statements about Tosh Plumlee, and seems to have been hoisted by his own petard." Hemming's assertions remind me of Joe McCarthy's ever-changing numbers of communists in the State Department. This is supposed to be a forum devoted to historical research, not P.T. Barnum-like self-promotion, which presumes that there's a sucker born every minute. Hemming has shown that he can't get the simplest public records correct, yet would have us believe that he has been cleared for access to high-level, classified materials.SAME RESPONSE I GAVE TO PETER:.... SHOW ME THE BEEF !! GET IT UNDER OATH, THE VA IS ALREADY INTERESTED !!I have to hope that it's obvious to any reader that Hemming is avoiding accountability for some very direct misstatements. If he can't be straight about simple, black and white issues, why would he be elevated to privileged status here? Here's another of his flagrant misrepresentations of fact: Here's a memo re Senate voucher for testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Tosh's bona fides overwhelmingly outdistance Hemming's. This is our children's children's history. If we allow the forum to be hijacked by this oafish bloviation, our time and effort are wasted, or worse. We are responsible if we allow Hemming's undocumented version of his-story to prevail. Absent any credible contribution to JFK assassination research, his participation here is worse than no participation at all. T.C.

Hopefully John Simkin will immediately provide a FAX number so that Hemming can keep his word and "FAX [Tosh's] whole goddamn file to John forthwith !!" Recognizing the truism advanced by John's football coach, the answer isn't to keep cutting the baby in half. The truth does not lie halfway between false and honest statements. When Bertrand Russell proposed a similar mid-point analysis in the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK responded that Russell's attention "might well be directed to the burglar, rather than to those who caught the burglar." Now is not the time for Chamberlainesque appeasement; Hemming's blitzkreig has been enabled here long enough. Hemming's inadequacy and failure to perform have nothing to do with Plumlee's story, or the corroboration that has been produced and posted. The aggression to keep Tosh from participating on this forum has been rabid. Regardless of whether or not Tosh posts a timeline, we need to allow poor Gerry an opportunity to honor his word by providing the FAX number he keeps whining about so that he can send the "whole goddamn file to John forthwith." Why can't that be done? T.C.

ARE YOU BLIND OR STUPID ??!! READ THE DAMN DD-214, IT SHOWS ONLY 4 MONTHS OF "SERVICE?" !!.... I hope he thanks you for getting him back into the slam for the 6th time ??!!Today it's "READ THE DAMN DD-214" when yesterday the claim was that there would be no "Form DD-214" because there was "no 'Discharge' per se." Here is a copy of the page showing the award of benefits from a December 29, 2004 document Even when in full attack mode, Hemming can't address an issue straightforwardly or credibly. He did say there would be no DD-214, and that was proven to be false. He did say that "Plumlee accrued no right to any benefits whatsoever," and that was proven to be false. He did say that Plumlee only had "4 months of service," and that was proven to be false. He did insinuate that Plumlee was in the "slam" at least five (5) times previously, and now he avoids confirming his own meaning when asked directly (assumedly because it's false). As Robert Charles-Dunne expressed so well, "Gerry has made some sweeping statements about Tosh Plumlee, and seems to have been hoisted by his own petard." Hemming's assertions remind me of Joe McCarthy's ever-changing numbers of communists in the State Department. This is supposed to be a forum devoted to historical research, not P.T. Barnum-like self-promotion, which presumes that there's a sucker born every minute. Hemming has shown that he can't get the simplest public records correct (yes Virginia; there is a DD-214), yet would have us believe that he has been cleared for access to high-level, classified materials. I think not. T.C.

ARE YOU BLIND OR STUPID ??!! READ THE DAMN DD-214, IT SHOWS ONLY 4 MONTHS OF "SERVICE?" !! If he has beguiled the VA, etc. into a "Category 8" disability, then you have just guaranteed that he will be hearing from the U.S. Attorney in Denver, CO. I hope he thanks you for getting him back into the slam for the 6th time ??!!Today it's "READ THE DAMN DD-214" when yesterday the claim was that there would be no "Form DD-214" because there was "no 'Discharge' per se." Regarding the "4 MONTHS OF SERVICE," my reading of the Department of Veteran Affairs document posted in this thread, dated August 7, 2003, is that Tosh Plumlee "served in the Army National Guard from October 22, 1952 to February 8, 1953; the Army Reserves from September 28, 1953 to March 1, 1954; and the Army from March 2, 1954 to July 2, 1954." And that is just the pre-classified service. Using my humble bookreader English, when Gerry Hemming talks about getting Tosh Plumlee "back into the slam for the 6th time," the commonly understood implication is that Tosh has been in the "slam" at least five (5) times previously. Does Hemming specifically intend this meaning? Has he re-evaluated his understanding of military service discharge procedure? Can he add the months of service identified in the paragraph above and still assert "4?" And what about the following claim?: While it was so predictable that Hemming's hysteria would boil over into the criminal justice area, what should researchers take from that? If we find that researchers have long known about both Hemming's and Plumlee's histories, should either of them be dismissed on the basis of having ever had any brush with the law? Should their relative infractions and/or sentences be compared to better understand whose story to believe about what transpired during the CIA's secret wars? Would it make a difference if the evidence showed that Hemming spent a vastly greater portion of his life incarcerated than Plumlee? The whole issue is another red herring. T.C.

Here's a partial document showing the periods of service (far more than 4 months) that can be admitted in such a record as Tosh's: I apologize that all of my other attachments on other threads have suddenly disappeared, but there is only so much space allocated for inserting such documents as these. T.C.

Here is a copy of the "Form DD-214" (lower left corner) which Gerry Hemming claims Tosh wouldn't have, showing an honorable discharge: Here is a copy of the page showing the award of benefits from a December 29, 2004 document: T.C.

I posted the photo to which John Geraghty referred, but was constrained on my attachment space, given the need to post Tosh Plumlee's discharge and benefits documents on another thread. Sorry for the inconvenience. T.C.

I would prefer not to be in the middle of an ugly squabble either, but the smearing of excrement as been predominantly a one-sided affair. Hemming's aggression has gone unchecked, the consequence of which is that he determines what can be discussed here and deliberately attempts to make this forum too unpleasant for Tosh's participation. That result is a negative for the members. Peter Lemkin's support for Tosh's credibility should be given great weight. T.C.

I believe I can help. John posted essentially the same post in two different threads. The "missing" assertion quoted by Hemming is not in this thread, but in the almost identical post that is found in the thread "William 'Tosh' Plumlee: The Value of Inside Sources." That's the explanation. Thanks Ron. I knew that I had read the same post, and with Hemming citing that same quote, I couldn't figure out why it wasn't included in the text here. T.C.

Would Hemming apologize for denigrating Tosh Plumlee's military service if the above claim was proven to be fallacious? What would be the appropriate meaning to be derived from a service record that contained the following statement: "ADDITIONAL DATES OF SERVICE CLASSIFIED NOT TO BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE"? T.C.

Please, Pray Tell, give me ONE specific clue as to what a truthful reaction "Sounds Like" ??!! I was surprised to find John's assertion, quoted by Hemming, missing from the original post with no sign of it having been edited. T.C.

Hopefully John Simkin will immediately provide a FAX number so that Hemming can keep his word and "FAX [Tosh's] whole goddamn file to John forthwith !!" T.C.

Consider me to be defending Tosh here and now. I have personally posted documents which support the timing and substance of his assertions. I also went scuba diving from Marathon in November, 2004, and there was a large inlet lined with docks. So, whether my defense is deemed adequate or not, it's time for Hemming to deliver on his commitment: "FAX his whole goddamn file to John forthwith !!" This is Gerry Hemming keeping his word? This is his response to someone calling him on his promise to produce Tosh Plumlee's file to John Simkin? "MORE TO COME!!" indeed. Seeing is believing. Even lowly scribblers and bookreaders can discern that Hemming is reneging. Everyone has misunderstood him or misrepresented his statements. Boo friggin Hoo. But there's no mistaking the commitment he made to produce Tosh's "whole goddamn file to John forthwith !!" Consider me to be defending Tosh here and now.... So, whether my defense is deemed adequate or not, it's time for Hemming to deliver on his commitment: "FAX his whole goddamn file to John forthwith !!" We are still awaiting the Hemming FAX of Tosh's "whole goddamn file," nothing more, nothing less. T.C.

Some names are a dime a dozen - indeed! Tim Carroll

I watched Fog of War for the umpteenth time late last night, and McNamara's comment about LeMay's attitude at the end of the Missile Crisis is indeed chilling. But I think there is point of huge historical magnitude that largely goes unnoticed. McNamara mentioned the massive nuclear superiority the U.S. held at that time, citing the ratio of 17:1. When McNamara mentions that LeMay wanted to use that superiority while we still had it, he's revealing a deep truth. The tactic of exaggerating the capabilities of one's enemy was applied to the Soviets all through the Fifties to justify our own massive nuclear build-up. That build-up was for a first strike capability - what I like to characterize as a Nazi-like attitude, "The First Strike Final Solution." When Kennedy found himself being pressed on issues like the Missile Gap and a generally weaker posture than Eisenhower embodied, his solution was to leak through a low-level speech by Roswell Gilpatrick the true balance (or imbalance, actually) of power. This was in September, 1961. In hindsight, we now know that this exposure led directly to Khrushchev's need for a quick fix, which came to be the Cuban missile deployment. T.C.