Ashton Gray

This is the second of the usenet messages of "The Real Deep Throat": Why is Liddy lying about 26 May 1972? It was posted on 13 January 2004, the day after the first post (above): Date: 13 Jan 2004 20:51:52 -0000 Message-ID: <KJ7FERHZ37999.6610185185@anonymous> From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT) Subject: Why is Liddy lying about 26 May 1972? Newsgroups: misc.legal Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services. Why is Liddy lying about where he really was on 26 May 1972? Note the ALL CAPS EMPHASIS in the following excerpts of Liddy's self-conflicting stories of the evening of 26 May 1972. CAREER-xxxx LIDDY'S FIRST STORY IN HIS BOOK, "WILL": "On 26 May [1972] the Cubans all moved into the Watergate Hotel under assumed names, posing as a group working for a corporation named Ameritas. ...We had found that the Continental Room door to the corridor was equipped with an electric alarm, so we couldn't get through the banquet room after hours without first defeating it. McCord discovered that the door alarm wasn't activated until 11 P.M. That proved THE KEY TO OUR PLAN. "Ameritas told the Watergate Hotel that it wanted to hold a dinner meeting and presentation. To allay suspicion and kill time Hunt had a multicourse banquet ordered and rented a motion picture projector AND TRAVEL FILM to play after dinner. ...We expected the DNC headquarters would be vacant well before 11 P.M. on a Friday night. "MCCORD...EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE BANQUET... . Banquet time arrived and THE REST OF US HAD A GOOD TIME, even POLISHING OFF MCCORD'S MEAL. The film went on as scheduled and WAS SO BORING the waiters were encouraged to clean up and leave early. WE RAN THE FILM a couple of times for the benefit of anyone looking in... . Finally, at 10:30 P.M, with NO WORD FROM MCCORD that the DNC offices had yet been vacated, a guard making his periodic rounds looked in and told US WE'D HAVE TO LEAVE. "EVERYONE DID, EXCEPT HUNT AND GONZALEZ, who stayed behind to turn out the lights, hoping TO RECEIVE WORD FROM MCCORD OVER THE TRANSCEIVER... ." G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography," "WILL" CAREER-xxxx LIDDY'S SECOND STORY, UNDER OATH, IN VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION 6 DECEMBER 1996: "[O]n the 26th of May we made our first of three attempts. Took three attempts to get into there, because while it might not look it, it is a fairly high-security building. There were some Federal Reserve offices in there, as I recall, and so you had guards from that downstairs, and then you had the building guards and so on. "In any event, the first plan was to have the Cuban cohort pose as businessmen, salespeople. And so we created an organization called Ameritas, A-m-e-r-i-t-a-s, and we rented a ground floor room in which to hold a business dinner, supposedly. We had a camera--a projector, rather, and screen. We had A FILM APPROPRIATE TO TRAINING OF BUSINESS PEOPLE. And the object of the exercise was to stay there so long that the guards would leave them alone, and the alarm which led from there into the office building WOULD BE DISARMED BY MR. MCCORD. And that would be how we would get in. "Bear in mind that I WAS NOT AT THAT DINNER. I WAS PRESENT IN THE AREA BUT NOT AT THAT DINNER." G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony 6 December 1996 United States District Court for the District of Columbia No. 92-1807: Maureen K. Dean and John W. Dean, Plaintiffs, v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin, G. Gordon Liddy, and Phillip Mackin Bailley, Defendants. Liddy had eight years to get his story straight about 26 May 1972 before he published the pack of lies he called "WILL" in 1980. Liddy had 11 more years to get his story straight before he "completely updated" his pack of lies called "WILL" in 1991. Liddy had five more years to get his story straight before he was put under oath, on videotape, in deposition in December 1996. Can you count the contradictions? The alarm was supposed to be "disarmed by McCord" after 11:00 p.m., this was "the key" to their plan - yet McCord "excused himself from the banquet" before it was even served, never to return, and suddenly, somehow, became a look-out checking for whether the DNC headquarters was vacant or not? The film was a "travel film" - but also somehow was "a film appropriate to training of business people"? Liddy was there at the banquet, helping to polish off McCord's plate, being bored by the travel/business-training film, and left with the rest when told to - but "was not at that dinner"? So which time was Liddy lying: in his book, or under oath? The correct answer is: both times. Liddy is a career xxxx. It is true that Liddy was not at that dinner on 26 May 1972. That one part he finally told the truth about under oath in December 1996, and proved conclusively in the process that he'd been lying for twenty-four years about it. Hunt was not in any liquor cabinet on that night, either, as Liddy went on to claim. Now ask them where they really were. There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie. There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other. That's why none of their cooked stories ever made any sense to anybody who tried to make sense of it. Not until you know why these people went to such incomprehensible lengths to give themselves alibis for those dates in late May will you ever unlock the truth about Watergate. The truth makes Watergate as you know it look like a TeleTubbies episode. While you're at it, you'd better find out what Alfred Baldwin was really doing at Andrews Air Force Base on 20 May 1972, and you'd better get the flight test logs for the then-new Air Force One 27000 during the end of May 1972 - while Nixon was traveling on 26000, lifting toasts in Moscow and Leningrad. PERSONAL MESSAGE TO CAREER-TURD LIDDY: Somebody very wise once said, "It's the cover-up that gets you." The name escapes me. FOOTNOTE: On Sunday, 4 June 1972, exactly one week after the alleged 28 May 1972 "first break-in" at the DNC (which never happened), Ingo Swann flew to California and was picked up at the San Francisco airport by NSA's Hal Puthoff. THE REAL DEEP THROAT -=- This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services. Ashton Gray

This is the first of the posts in usenet by "The Real Deep Throat": There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. This message appeared in the newsgroup misc.legal (and several other newsgroups) on 12 January 2004: Date: 12 Jan 2004 08:12:59 -0000 Message-ID: <O6H6E8TW37998.1340162037@anonymous> From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT) Subject: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate Newsgroups: misc.legal Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services. There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a lie. There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other. That's why none of their cooked stories ever made any sense to anybody who tried to make sense of it. That's why the so-called "logs" of the allegedly tapped DNC phone were always described as having been "worthless" by the players who peddled the story, and were destroyed without anyone investigating the case ever seeing any such alleged "logs." Of course they were worthless: they were fictional, manufactured work-product "logs" filtered through Liddy, not logs of actual phone calls, because the phone was never tapped. That's why the phone company sweep of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate just days before the break-in on 16-17 June 1972 found no trace of any bugging device on any phone: there never was one. That's why Liddy carefully made a big production of having letterhead printed that was emblazoned with the "top secret" name of his so-called "covert intelligence" operation - GEMSTONE - then made sure plenty of people saw it. GEMSTONE was not an intelligence operation: it was only a COVER for a major intelligence operation. That's why the Cubans actually did hold an "Ameritas" dinner on 26 May 1972 at the Watergate: to make damned sure there was a record of their presence there and that the staff would remember them. But Liddy and Hunt weren't there. Ask them where they were. Ask them where they really were. (They'll tell you they were "in the vicinity." They are career liars.) That's why the other career xxxx, Alfred Baldwin, claimed under oath that Liddy and the others were at McGovern headquarters at 2:00 a.m. during the night of 26-27 May 1972 - with Liddy purportedly riding around for a half hour with Baldwin and McCord - yet Liddy claims he was involved in the "first attempt" of the "first break-in" at the Watergate that night, using the "Ameritas business dinner" ploy. They both are career liars lying to cover up where they and Hunt really were. That's why the other career xxxx, Bernard Barker, swore in Congress that his "only job" on the alleged "first break-in" was to "search for documents to be photographed," while career xxxx Liddy swore under oath that the only purpose of the team in the alleged "first break-in" was "to place a tap on the telephone in the office of Lawrence O'Brien and to place a room monitoring device in the office of Lawrence O'Brien" - neither of which was done. Why? Because there was no "first break-in" at all: it was a planned cover story and alibi for what really was done. And that's why they actually did break in, and arranged very carefully to get "caught," on the night of 16-17 June 1972: the only reason was so the lie about 26, 27, and 28 May 1972 could be put into the record. Why the big lie? Why get themselves convicted of a burglary? What were they really covering up that would be important enough to go to jail? Here's a hint: it's better than going to the chair. Ask Hunt and Liddy why they had gone to the Pierre Hotel in New York City eight months earlier, on 4 September 1971 (the day after the equally phony Fielding office "break-in" using the exact same CIA-trained personnel/liars - same thing). Ask them what they were actually doing there, 3/4 of a mile from the Times Square "lab" of CIA's Cleve Backster, just before the hook-up of Backster and Ingo Swann. There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate on 28 May 1972. There were no "failed attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972. It never was anything but a cover story and alibi for one of the dirtiest deeds ever done. The surviving principals and accomplices, as well as the surviving accessories to and after the fact, need no reminder that there is no statute of limitations on what they did and have covered up. L. Patrick Gray was right on 17 April 1973 when he told Lowell Weicker "the lid is going to blow off." He just didn't know it was going to take over 30 years to blow. PERSONAL MESSAGE TO CAREER-TURD LIDDY: "Two seven thousand." So who's going to fry for all that hugger-mugger, Miss Priss? Better start squealing, piG-Man. Somebody else already has. THE REAL DEEP THROAT -=- This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services. Ashton Gray

In early 2004 a series of messages appeared through anonymous remailers in a variety of usenet newsgroups that were signed "The Real Deep Throat." I now have collected what I believe is a complete set of the messages. As far as I can determine, these messages were the first indication ever that there was far more to "Watergate" than anyone ever had revealed or discovered in investigation, and that "The Official Story" was nothing but a pack of lies (the prime liars, of course, having been Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post). One thing that I find particularly fascinating about this series is that on Tuesday, 31 May 2005, just a little over a year after this series of posts to usenet, the dodderning, senile Mark Felt was trotted out before the cameras in a staggeringly obscene circus to try to sell the world on his having been Woodward and Bernstein's "Deep Throat"—even though they had vowed that they would never reveal the phantom "Deep Throat's" identity until he was dead (that assuming, arguendo, that they ever had a "Deep Throat," which they didn't). Though the knee, of necessity, was slow indeed to jerk, the knee jerked. The perpetrators of the "Watergate" fraud somehow had to reinforce the vicious hoax they had invested so much in. Of course the only "Deep Throat" there ever was consisted of Woodward's own connections to U.S. intelligence and his own fictions to cover up for CIA and NSA. Now John Simkin has introduced yet a new "Deep Throat" in the anonymous person of an "e-mailer who was close to Nixon" who apparently has come along, not unlike the pop-up (but mum) Mark Felt, to confirm that "The Official Story" is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Since all these "Deep Throats" are springing up like the spawn of dragon's teeth to sing another aria of "The Official Story," I thought it only fitting to record here, in date sequence below, the 2004 revelations of "The Real Deep Throat"—who sings a different tune altogether. Ashton Gray

I don't know why you would consider doing otherwise, and it's a fine contribution and enhancement to this work that Bill has done. Thanks for the additional link to "What Jane Roman Said" and for the excellent reference to Roberdeau's REVELATION 1963 and the excerpt. The timeline is using any an all sources that can be scraped up, but in every instance primary sources—documents and testimony—always take precedent over a secondary or tertiary source interpretation or description or explanation of same. In other words, the first entry for a given event might have come from some book talking about it, but the minute there's an actual primary source for that event it will be added, and quite often will supplant the "placeholder" entry that might have come from a secondary or tertiary source. It's also being done by precious few people with precious little time and resources, so if you or anybody you know would like to timeline, e.g., Harvey and Lee and post it, I guarantee you it will get incorporated. Failing that, I'm afraid the ones doing the job are going to have to get to the sources they get to as they get to them. Ashton

Well, John, this is quite a development: you have gone from studying and reporting history to making it by introducing yet another "Deep Throat" into the annals of Watergate. It is of abiding interest to me that your new "Deep Throat" has found his/her/its voice here in this thread where "The Official Story" of Watergate has been being shred to confetti, and has arrived to shore up...well, "The Official Story." I have a few specific questions. Your source said: 1. What "two FBI agents"? What were their names? 2. What "failure to uphold the law" by these purported FBI agents? 3. What "obstruction of justice on September 17th 1971" had Nixon purportedly orchestrated? First, the cashier's check for $25,000 was issued on Monday, 10 April 1972 by the First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida, to Kenneth Dahlberg, who was traveling to Washington, D.C. the following day. The check was purchased with cash that allegedly had been left as a donation to the Nixon campaign by Dahlberg's business partner, Dwayne Andreas, who was traveling abroad at the time. On Tuesday, 11 April 1972, Dahlberg was at a meeting of Republican fundraisers in Washington, D.C., and gave the $25,000 cashier's check he'd gotten in Florida the previous day to Maurice Stan, who passed it on to Hugh Sloan. On or about Thursday, 13 April 1972, G. Gordon Liddy—who secretly was working at the time under special orders and clearances with CIA—showed CIA dirtbag E. Howard Hunt the $25,000 cashier's check, plus the four checks drawn on the Mexico City bank totalling $89,000, and asked Hunt if their fellow CIA dirtbag Bernard Barker could launder the checks through Barker's Miami business and return cash. Dirtbag Hunt called dirtbag Barker and set it up, then Hunt and Liddy flew to Miami on or about Friday, 14 April 1972 and delivered the checks to dirtbag Barker, who subsequently deposited the checks into the Republic National Bank of Miami to the account of his real estate firm on Thursday, 20 April 1972. The vaunted Washington Post stories by Woodward and Bernstein that your source waxes so warmly about have conflicting information about the checks that would totally screw up anyone trying to trace the truth through their distortions. And of course Woodward and Bernstein never revealed Liddy's secret arrangements with CIA. Now, your source has just claimed to have had a "former employer" who was "involved in the $25,000 cashiers check," and nobody was "involved" in that check except Dahlberg and Dwayne Andreas—other than the CIA dirtbags. So my next question is: Was your source's "former employer" Dahlberg, Andreas (or both, since they were partners at the relevant time), or CIA? (Guess where my money's going.) Your source also claims: "one of my former employer's several businesses in Mexico City had a checking account with the same Mexico City bank that issued those drafts... ." The bank at issue for the four checks totalling $89,000 was Banco Internacional of Mexico City, all four made out to Manuel Ogarrio Daguerre from Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation in Houston, Texas (and we won't even get into that story.) If this is the same "former employer," is it Dahlberg, Andreas (or both, since they were partners at the relevant time), or CIA? (Guess where my money's going.) And if it isn't the same "former employer," who is it? I wonder if this new Watergate gladiator will be more forthcoming than Mssrs. Caddy and Baldwin. Guess where my money's going. Ashton

Back again, Bill, to address a few other events related to black propaganda ops that you listed. In this message I'd like to take up the following entries, post-assassination: There is another blatant black propaganda op that took place immediately after the assassination, this one significantly involving Carlos Bringuier, an op that that I believe is central to all the above. Before I get into specifics on it, though, I want to restate a crucial overarching datum: On 11 February 1963, CIA officially had created the Domestic Operations Division (DOD), and E. Howard Hunt had been made its Chief of Covert Operations. Therefore, at all relevant times, E. Howard Hunt, with Tracy Barnes as head of CIA's DOD, were in positions of complete oversight and control on events related to the domestic Cuban exile operations. It also cannot be pointed out too forcefully that at all relevant times the Cuban Student Directorate (CSD—a.k.a Student Revolutionary Directorate, a.k.a. Student Revolucionary Directorate, a.k.a. Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, or DRE)—of which Carlos Bringuier was "New Orleans delegate"—was "totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963." (Cite: "What Jane Roman Said," Part 6, "Dick Helms's Man in Miami") In fact, at this point, given the cumulative evidence, I believe it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlos Bringuier at all relevant times was financed by and taking directions from CIA, and that any and all such domestic activities were known to and sanctioned by CIA's DOD, including E. Howard Hunt as Chief of Covert Operations, whose acknowledged specialties—as documented in my first post in this thread—were psychological warfare, propaganda, and covert operations. This brings me to a masterpiece of black propaganda: this broadsheet slammed out by Bringuier in conjunction with the Miami arm of the Cuban Student Directorate on 23 November 1963, the day immediately following the assassination of John F. Kennedy: For anyone having trouble with that image of the broadsheet, here is a direct link to the image on the web, and I recommend a close study. This has to rank among the most sophisticated pieces of black propaganda. It is black propaganda artistry. The top headline alone, standing above the smirking face of Oswald and the arrogant, threatening image of Castro is pure genius: "PRESUMED ASSASSINS" The use of "presumed" evokes the American, democratic "presumption of innocence" doctrine while exactly reversing it to "presumption of guilt." The use of the plural "assassins" makes instant connection between Castro and Oswald, and there is no question about how the "master and servant" relationship would have stood. Even greater genius is evident in the immediate use below the photos of: "ASSASSIN'S BACKGROUND" Now "assassin" is singular, and all "presumption" has been eliminated from the equation. Hunt giveth and Hunt taketh away. A complete analysis of the propaganda in this piece is beyond the scope of this post, and some of it will be covered in a later post about the staged New Orlean's row between Oswald and Bringuier. What must not be lost is how fast such a sophisticated black propaganda smear job was produced. Another point of interest is the particular photo of Oswald that was used, and there are significant questions of how it was obtained so fast with rights to use. Finally, without belaboring the details here, it is amazing to read the convoluted garbage that has been scattered around this propaganda piece in the attempts of the CIA to distance themselves from it. The tortured writhings are well chronicled in "What Jane Roman Said," Part 6, "Dick Helms's Man in Miami," which I cited above, and they, too, should be studied, with careful attention to the utter absence of actual evidence for any of the anecdotal disclaimers of non-participation. In other words, even while acknowledging that the Cuban Student Directorate had been funded by and under close control of the CIA at all other relevant times, the CIA claims that this masterpiece, above, of sophisticated black propaganda was strictly the "rogue" act of the Cuban Student Directorate. The CIA are professional liars. And the CIA-generated piece above is unrivaled in having planted the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald had assassinated John F. Kennedy while acting as an agent of Cuba and Fidel Castro. Ashton Gray

Excellent. I expected there was a reason for it, and will make a note of it in my copy of the timeline. Thanks. The timeline is always a work in progress, and I'll bring these things to the attention of all contributors to try to get those sources processed into the chronology. I'd sure be interested to see it. Meanwhile, I've just updated the introductory material in the first part of the April 1963 chronology above to add important data regarding Hunt and his relationship to Bringuier and the Cuban Student Directorate (CSD) at all relevant times. For any who might have read the chronology before I made the update, it bears repeating here: While E. Howard Hunt makes no on-stage appearance in the April 1963 chronology, it is vital to understand that just weeks prior to the events of April, on 11 February 1963, CIA officially had created the Domestic Operations Division (DOD), and Hunt had been made its Chief of Covert Operations. Therefore, at all relevant times, E. Howard Hunt, with Tracy Barnes as head of CIA's DOD, were in positions of complete oversight and control on events related to the domestic Cuban exile operations. It also cannot be pointed out too forcefully that at all relevant times the Cuban Student Directorate—of which Carlos Bringuier was "New Orleans delegate"—was "totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963." (Cite: "What Jane Roman Said," Part 6, "Dick Helms's Man in Miami") And Carlos Bringuier is front and center in several scenes of the April 1963 chronology, themselves acts of propaganda. A compelling case is developing tying Bringuier to CIA, Hunt, and their Cuban front groups, one part of which case was presented in my first post in this thread. Thanks again for focusing attention on this black propaganda issue. It is radioactive. In my next contribution in this thread, I'll be addressing the fact that Bringuier and CSD were "firstest with the mostest" in the aftermath of the assassination to pound home Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba background, using, of course, the Punch'n'Judy "conflict" that had been staged in New Orleans and subsequent radio program—all of it black propaganda. Ashton

This is a continuation of the post immediately above—a chronology of April 1963 centered on the 18 April 1963 distribution of the "Act of God" propaganda leaflet. The first part of this two-part chronology ended with that and other events of 18 April 1963. Picking up the next day: Friday, 19 April 1963 George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt leave Dallas, Texas for Washington, D.C. [NOTE: See entry for 20 April 1963 putting De Mohrenschildt in Washington. From there, the couple will travel also to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—where the wife of James McCord recently has traveled via Dallas—and to New York City.] • On the same day, Lee Harvey Oswald purportedly writes a letter to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York, requesting literature and announcing he has already distributed Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlets in Dallas. In the letter, Oswald essentially is begging for a free hand-out of the hand-outs, saying "I do not like to ask for something for nothing but I am unemployed." [NOTE: Contrast this with Marina Oswald's claims in letter of 27 April 1963 (see), saying that "we have money for about two months."] • CIA's Ted Shackley is again in touch with William Pawley and others developing plans for Operation Red Cross/Crypt. Saturday, 20 April 1963 According to a CIA memo, George De Mohrenschildt meets with someone in Washington, D.C. on this date, but the name of the person he met with is blacked out in the memo. • One the same day, Ruth Hyde Paine is with Lee and Marina Oswald at the Oswald's Neely Street apartment, purportedly going on a "picnic" with them to a nearby park. Sunday, 21 April 1963 According to FBI records, the FBI had informants inside the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City, and on this date "the FBI in New York City became aware of Oswald's letter." [NOTE: The date of Oswald's purported letter is only two days earlier, on Friday, 19 April 1963. This would mean that Oswald's letter would have had to be magically transported somehow from Dallas to New York City overnight (in 1963) to have arrived in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee offices by Saturday delivery in order for the FBI to "become aware" of any such letter. This is a practical impossibility.] Monday, 22 April 1963 ABC newswoman Lisa Howard has been flown to Cuba by Tosh Plumlee, a CIA operative, and is interviewing Fidel Castro. Tuesday, 23 April 1963 Vice President Lyndon Johnson is in Dallas for the Second Annual NASA Manned Space Flight Conference. He makes an announcement that John F. Kennedy is going to visit Dallas. • On the same day, George H. W. Bush files suit against Crawford Martin, the Secretary of State of the state of Texas, John Connally, and Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of the state of Texas accusing the statute apportioning congressional districts as being unconstitutional. Wednesday, 24 April 1963 Ruth Hyde Paine goes to the Oswalds' Neely Street apartment, and purportedly is "surprised" to find Lee Harvey Oswald packed to go to New Orleans. Conveniently, though, Ruth is available to drive Oswald to the bus station with all his belongings. Thursday, 25 April 1963 On or about this date, evidence indicates that Clemard Joseph Charles arrives in Washington, D.C., and is in touch with Army Intelligence's Dorthe Matlack. Charles has been recommended by Joseph Dryer of West Palm Beach, Florida (close to CIA's JM/WAVE) as "a man of great interest to the U.S. Government." [NOTE: It cannot be determined if George De Mohrenschildt is still in Washington, D.C. at the time or not, but the following day he will meet in New York City with Clemard Joseph Charles and others.] Friday, 26 April 1963 George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City: 1. WUBRINY/1 [Thomas James Devine] telephoned on the sterile line at approximately 17000 hours to report on a meeting held this afternoon, as described below. 2. WUBRINY/1 said that M. Clemard Joseph CHARLES, subject of earlier contact Reports, brought to the WUSALINE office [New York office of Wall Street investment firm Train, Cabot and Associates]: deMORNENSHILDT [sic, De Mohrenschildt], George DOB: circa 1910 POB: Boku, USSR CIT: U.S.A. (?) OCC: Geologist and Financier 3. Mr. DeMohrenschildt (deM) is the son of a Swedish father who was in Baku on a Nobel Enterprise at the time deM was born, left Baku at age 2. He has had two wives, the present one having been born in Peiking of Russian-French parents. In 1960 deM spent a year in Mexico with his wife and child and a donkey and is publishing a book on this titled something like 'Trois et le Mule.' 4. WUBRINY/1 says that deM is a geologist who is presently involved in exploring the mineral resources of Haiti and in established [sic] a seisel [sic—sisal] plantation. This has been written up in Le Montour [or Le Monteur] of March 13, 1963, the official issuance of the Haitian Government. WUBRINY/1 has a copy of this in the event it is not available in Kubark. According to this article, a $280,000 survey has been awarded to deM plus a ten year option of a concession on seisel [sic—sisal]. 5. deM claims that he has done geological work for the Meek (?) Company in offshore oil, the Arabian Peninsula, and mentioning this WUBRINY/1 says deM looked around the room and over his shoulder and said, "My connection with this is, of course, confidential." 6. WUBRINY/1 reports that deM claims to be an important person in Port-au-Prince and said that he did not go to the President to gain the concession, but, instead, worked through the Minister of Finance, Herve Boyer [or Boyar]. deM claims to be very close to this Minister, considers him a splendid person and says that he is likely to survive any change in the regime. 7. WUBRINY/1 characterized deM as being a typical international financier and wheeler and dealer who apparently shared with M. CHARLES various business interests including a bank and seisel [sic—sisal] business. 8. Regarding financial developments in Haiti, WUBRINY/1 said that M. CHARLES and deM said that they were anxious to develop a number of business interests in the country, including an office in deM's bank [sic—should this be Charles's bank?] which would enter into car financing and would buy some of the bank's commercial paper. WUBRINY/1 said that M. CHARLES made an unusual statement in this connection and announced that the third partner (in addition to M. CHARLES and deM) a Frenchman is arriving in New York n Sunday and a meeting has been set up for WUBRINY/1 to meet him on Monday. In this connection, M. CHARLES amazing statement was, "It is not appropriate for a banker to ask for money, " and he then deferred further discussion until the arrival of the French partner. 9. WUBRINY/1 said that M CHARLES and deM in listing the various investment possibilities in Haiti mentioned an insurance company, a banking company, a telephone company, a hotel (buy an existing one), a hydro-electric system, a wharf (interesting because of the availability of lumber in Cuba for this and the need to get it out). 10. WUBRINY/1 said that both men showed an element of bluff in their presentations and they spoke depreciatingly of the President, but spoke glowingly of the investment possibilities in Haiti. 11. WUBRINY/1 reported that deM was "a paper grabber" stating that every available handout in the office of WUBRINY/1 was sought by deM such as prospecti, lists of Directors, stockholders, etc., etc. 12. I congratulated WUBRINY/1 on eliciting such a tremendous amount of information in one short meeting and asked him to keep it up when the meeting schedule for Monday comes off. C. FRANK STONE, III Chief DO/COEO DO/COEO/EFS:jj(29 Apr 63) Distribution: Orig - EO subject 1 - EO chromo 1 - WUBRINY Ops [ NARA 1993:07.31.11:47:55:210047] • On the same day, in the Dominican Republic, three palace escorts are killed in an apparent attempt to kidnap the children of Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier. The attempt purportedly has been organized by revolutionary Clement Barbot. • On the same day, CIA's Gale Allen, a case officer of the Domestic Operations Division (DOD), initiates a request for an expedite check of George De Mohrenschildt, "exact reasons unknown." • On the same day, Guaranteed Warranty #64413 is issued in Austin, Texas, by C.B. Smith Motors to George Gordon Wing, of 717 Landon Lane, for a 1959 Rambler station wagon, with an identifying number of D-713121. [NOTE: This is a car later suspected of being involved in the Kennedy assassination.] Saturday, 27 April 1963 Marina Oswald writes a letter to her aunt and uncle in Russia. Marina and her daughter are living with Ruth Hyde Paine in Irving, Texas. In the letter she says that "Alek" (one of her pet names for Lee Harvey Oswald) has gone to New Orleans to find work. In contrast to other information about the Oswalds' financial situation, she says in the letter: "We have money for about two months so all this is not terrible so far. In that time something should be found." She also says "Alka [another pet name for Lee] took all the things with him so it will be easier for me and Marinka to leave here on the bus." Monday, 29 April 1963 CIA Office of Security finds that it has "no objection" to George De Mohrenschildt's acceptance of a contract with the Duvalier regime of Haiti in the field of "natural resource development." The Office of Security furnishes CIA's Domestic Operations Division (DOD) with a copy of a 1958 summary of the case of George De Mohrenschildt (#775). [NOTE: There is no known reason why DeMohrenschildt had been "of interest" to the CIA in 1958. This April 1963 event is indicative of one of the oddest anomalies of the many surrounding De Mohrenschildt: his entire raison d'etre, purportedly laid over years or decades, regarding working in Haiti was related to his geological credentials, experience, and research. Later, there even are maps he supplies for possible oil resources around Haiti. Yet this "natural resource development" that he's about to embark on in Haiti with Clemard Joseph Charles is primarily for starting a hemp farm.] Tuesday, 30 April 1963 After her interviews with Castro and top-ranking Cuban officials, ABC newswoman Lisa Howard is flown by Tosh Plumlee from Cuba to Miami. • On the same day, there is a top-secret meeting of the Standing Group of the National Security Council in which assignments are made regarding Cuba and Castro. The assignments are not memorialized until several days later, on 2 May 1963 [see], in a memorandum from President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, but are as follows: 1. There will be an examination of the possible developments in Cuba if Castro were to disappear from the scene. This analysis will be developed by Mr. Sherman Kent and will be available for discussion at the meeting of the Standing Group on May 14th. 2. There will be an analysis of the possible use of contingencies for the achievement of wider political objectives. This analysis will be conducted under the direction of Mr. Alexis Johnson and Mr. Paul Nitze, and its first results will be available for discussion at the meeting of the Standing Group on May 14th. This first analysis will provide: a. A detailed examination of possible action in the event of interference with surveillance; and b. a more general assessment of possible use of other contingencies in Cuba or in the waters around Cuba. 3. The Central Intelligence Agency will prepare a general paper on the possible forms of effective interference with the economic life of Cuba by sabotage or other means. In particular, CIA will report on the oil problem in relation to Cuba. It is hoped that a first report on this study may be available next week for distribution. 4. The Department of State will examine the possible use of the sugar market as a means of complicating the life of the Castro regime. It is hoped that this study will be available next week. 5. The principal topic of discussion for the meeting of the Standing Group on May 7th will be the development of a U.S. program and policy toward post-Castro Cuba, and the initial lead in the discussion will be taken by Mr. Wilson for USIA. Appropriate papers will be circulated before noon on Monday, May 6th. Wednesday, 1 May 1963 CIA's Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Helms, submits a memorandum to the Director of Central Intelligence, John McCone, regarding ABC newswoman Lisa Howard's trip to Cuba and interview with Fidel Castro. [NOTE: The thoroughness with which Helms had debriefed Lisa Howard—who Helms calls "Liza"—within one day after she had been flown to Miami by Tosh Plumlee seems to indicate a likelihood that Helms was in Miami at the time, not at Langley CIA headquarters. Of further interest, it is of record that CIA Director McCone was not at CIA headquarters during this time period, either. There is no record of his whereabouts, but his duties are being handled by Acting Director of CIA Marshall S. Carter. A bizarre note is that the signature "W. Lloyd George" is over Richard Helms's name and title at the end of the memo.] Here is the memo in full: S-E-C-R-E-T NO FORIGN DISSEM/CONTROLLED DISSEM/NO DISSEM ABROAD/BACKGROUND USE ONLY CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 1 May 1963 MEMORANDUM FOR: The Director of Central Intelligence SUBJECT: Interview of U.S. Newswoman with Fidel Castro Indicating Possible Interest in Rapprochement with the United.States 1. On 30 April 1963 Liza Howard [sic--elsewhere Lisa Howard], U.S. newswoman associated with the American Broadcasting. Company, returned to Miami from Cuba where she had interviewed a number of high-ranking Cuban officials, including Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Vilma Espin de Castro, Raul Roa, and Rene Vallejo. Her conversations with Fidel Castro totaled about ten hours and included one session on 22 April which lasted from 12:45 a.m. to 5:30 a.m. Following is an account of those conversations and Liza Howard's observations concerning the present Cuban situation. 2. It appears that Fidel Castro is looking for a way to reach a rapprochement with the United States Government, probably because he is aware that Cuba is in a state of economic chaos. The October blockade hurt the Cuban economy. Liza Howard believes that Castro talked about this matter with her because she is known as a progressive and she talked with him in frank, blunt, honest terms; Castro has little opportunity to hear this type of conversation. Castro indicated that if a rapprochement was wanted President John F. Kennedy would have to make the first move. In response to the statement that Castro would probably have to make the first move, Castro asked what the U.S. wanted from him. When a return to the original aims of the revolution was suggested, Fidel said that perhaps he, President Kennedy, and Premier Nikita Khrushchev should discuss this. Liza Howard said that she thought it was a more likely topic for Castro to discuss with President Kennedy. Castro said that he doubted that President Kennedy would talk with him without Khrushchev being present. When Howard pressed Castro for further information on how a rapprochement could be achieved he said that steps were already being taken. Pressed further, he said he considered the U.S. limitation on exile raids to be a proper step toward accommodation. It is Liza Howard's opinion that Castro wants to pursue the discussion of rapprochement with proper progressive spokesmen. Based on her discussions with the following persons Liza Howard feels that Guevara, Raul Castro, and Vilma Espin oppose any idea of rapprochement; Roa and Vallejo favor these discussions. 3. Castro asked Howard, who had previously interviewed Khrushchev, for an appraisal of him. When Howard said that Khrushchev was a shrewd politician who would break and dispose of Castro when the Soviets no longer needed him, Castro made no comment but only nodded his head as if in skeptical agreement. Liza Howard had no insight or advance notice on Castro's travel to Moscow. 4. Castro appears healthy, has no visible nervous twitches or tics, and was calm, rational, humorous, and non-argumentative during all discussions. Vallejo, Castro's personal physician, also acts as secretary, interpreter, and confidant. 5. Castro is in complete control in Cuba. No major decision is made without him. Neither Guevara nor Raul Castro would be able to rule Cuba if Fidel were assassinated. 6. In discussions with Castro about terror and secret police methods Liza Howard received the impression that he was not completely aware of the extent to which terror has gripped Cuba. 7. Castro refers to Soviet troops in Cuba as "technicals" and indicated that they have a training mission in Cuba. He made the point, however, that if an internal revolt takes place in Cuba Soviet "technicals" would fight with Castro to put down a counterrevolution. 8. Liza Howard said that Emil Stadelhofer, Swiss Ambassador to Cuba, is an overworked, timid man who does not have Castro's ear. She believes that the Swiss need a larger staff in Habana [sic--Havana] and that Stadelhofer needs recognition for a job well done. Howard also said that in her opinion the Western diplomatic community in Habana [sic] has no influence on Castro or his government. 9. While discussing a possible rapprochement Castro asked for full assessments of President and Mrs. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy, and wanted to know if Adlai Stevenson had power in the U.S. and if his voice was heard in President Kennedy's councils. Castro commented that James Donovan was a good man; it was Liza Howard's impression that Donovan had not talked politics with Castro but that Donovan had a platform from which he could launch political discussions on the philosophy of revolution. 10. Liza Howard said that she was willing to undertake further discussions with Castro concerning a possible rapprochement. Other possible candidates whom she suggested were Edwin M. Martin, Adlai Stevenson, and Luis Munoz Marin. She also mentioned Donovan but was not quite certain that he was progressive enough. Liza Howard is willing to arrange a meeting for any U.S. Government spokesman with Castro through Vallejo, who will be the point of contact. 11. Liza Howard definitely wants to impress the U.S. Government with two facts: Castro is ready to discuss rapprochement and she herself is ready to discuss it with him if asked to do so by the U.S. Government. [signature of "W. Lloyd George"] Richard Helms Deputy Director (Plans) CSDB-3/654,439 Orig: The Director of Central Intelligence cc: Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs The Director of Intelligence and Research Department of State The Director, Defense Intelligence Agency The Attorney General The Department of Justice The Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Deputy Director for Intelligence Assistant Director for National Estimates Assistant Director for Current Intelligence Thursday, 2 May 1963 The Acting Director of the CIA, Marshall S. Carter, sends an urgent missive to the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy: Washington, May 2, 1963. Dear Mr. Bundy: With respect to the Lisa Howard report, Mr. McCone cabled me this morning stating that he cannot overemphasize the importance of secrecy in this matter and requested that I take all appropriate steps along this line to reflect his personal views on its sensitivity. Mr. McCone feels that gossip and inevitable leaks with consequent publicity would be most damaging. He suggests that no active steps be taken on the rapprochement matter at this time and urges most limited Washington discussions, and that in these circumstances emphasis should be placed in any discussions on the fact that the rapprochement track is being explored as a remote possibility and one of several alternatives involving various levels of dynamic and positive action. In view of the foregoing, it is requested that the Lisa Howard report be handled in the most limited and sensitive manner. Faithfully yours, [signature] Marshall S. Carter Lieutenant General, USA • On the same day, 2 May 1963, McGeorge Bundy issues a top-secret eyes-only memo to the Members of the Standing Group of the National Security Council that details the assignments that had been made in regard to Castro and Cuba during the Standing Group meeting of 30 April 1963 [see]. • On the same day there is a meeting between CIA and Clemard Joseph Charles in New York City: "Charles expressed hope that President Kennedy and other high U.S. Government officials will give him an opportunity to present his plan to save Haiti from 'Duvalier and Communism.' He plans to visit his friend and American business partner, Joseph F. Dryer, in Tampa and hopes that an audience with high U.S. Government officials could be arranged after the weekend 'most discreetly.' Utmost caution imperative in this regard since "Papa Doc" Duvalier would kill his family if he learned about Charles' cooperation with U.S. After the four hour interview Charles insisted that we meet his good friend and business partner, DeMohrenschildt. He told us that he has absolute confidence in the honesty and ability of Charles whom he considers a potential leader in a Democratic Haiti. Charles' great advantage is that he has never been tied up with any political party." [NARA 1993.07.31.11:51:57:280047] I am ending this chronological context for the 18 April 1963 "Act of God" piece here rather arbitrarily. I hope to get an opportunity later to introduce some context also for several of the other events that Bill Kelly outlined in this thread. In closing this particular section, though, I have to say that if there is anyone who can read this chronology of April 1963 and the few days preceding and following it, and still not realize that there is sentient—if hidden—coordination in the actions and movements of the principals and bit-players scattered in multiple locales in this drama, I urgently recommend that you check immediately to see if your breath will fog a mirror. Ashton Gray

Hi again, Bill. I'd originally hoped to complete my response in one post, taking up a few of the events you had listed in chronological order and adding to them in ways relevant to the Hunt/JMWAVE/Bringuier data in my first post in this thread, but I've encountered enough material that I've decided that I'm going to have to take it in more discrete chunks, and for the moment I want to concentrate on this event from your list: Before I get into the data, I have to say that after all my praise of your meticulousness in research and presentation, it is my unpleasant duty to point out that the correct date for this event—at least from all the information I can find on it, including the other forum thread you cite—is 18 April 1963. Please clarify if there is some reason for the November 1963 time frame you put into that entry, but for this exercise I'm going with the 18 April 1963 date. And it's that date that has centered me to this particular event, not because of the event itself in isolation—however bizarre its own fascination—but because of the events surrounding it. In fact, so much data came gushing out surrounding this date and event that I'm going to have to break this post down into two parts. The month of April 1963 and the few days just before and just after it is jammed with what I consider pivotal events, and while they do not all go directly to the subject of black propaganda by any stretch of the imagination, they certainly do go to a context and motives for just such black propaganda. I'm loath to do anything that smacks of hijacking this thread, so if you feel that what follows is out of line, let me know and I happily will edit this down here, and move it to its own thread. I hope, though, that you will find the context for the "Act of God" issue to be as captivating as I have. While E. Howard Hunt makes no on-stage appearance in this act of the drama, it is vital to understand that just weeks prior to the events of the following chronology, on 11 February 1963, CIA officially had created the Domestic Operations Division (DOD), and Hunt had been made its Chief of Covert Operations. Therefore, at all relevant times, E. Howard Hunt, with Tracy Barnes as head of CIA's DOD, were in positions of complete oversight and control on events related to the domestic Cuban exile operations. It also cannot be pointed out too forcefully that at all relevant times the Cuban Student Directorate—of which Carlos Bringuier was "New Orleans delegate"—was "totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963." (Cite: "What Jane Roman Said," Part 6, "Dick Helms's Man in Miami") And Carlos Bringuier is front and center in several scenes below, themselves acts of propaganda. A compelling case is developing tying Bringuier to CIA, Hunt, and their Cuban front groups, one part of which case was presented in my earlier post in this thread. I believe that I can serve the data no better than to present it unadorned, without commentary from me, in as brief a section of chronology as I can manage, but even then I'm having to break just this month of April into two posts in order to preserve the fullness of the context that I find so curious about it all. In doing so, by your leave, I also am expanding your description of the "Act of God" leaflet distribution to include the mailing on the same day—18 April 1963—of a letter containing the same text, postmarked Arlington, Texas and mailed to Tony Cuesta in Miami. The following chronology is of selected events from the timeline bracketing the 18 April 1963 event by about two weeks in either direction. This first section will go up to and include 18 April 1963—beginning, as it happens, with one of the other black propaganda events you listed: Sunday, 31 March 1963 Marina Oswald purportedly takes three (or four?) photos of Lee Harvey Oswald in the back yard of their Neely Street apartment, with Lee holding a rifle, carrying a pistol, and also holding up two leftist newspapers: The Militant and The Worker. [NOTE: Marina Oswald first said to investigators that she had taken only one photo of Lee, then said under oath that she took two when she learned there were two, then later said she took three when a third was produced, etc.] Monday, 1 April 1963 The day after the alleged "backyard photos" incident, Lee Harvey Oswald is terminated at the graphic arts firm of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall—but he will continue working there through Saturday, 6 April 1963 [see]. • On the same day, the wife of CIA's James McCord arrives on American Airlines flight #20 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, returning from a trip to Lubbock, Texas via Dallas. In Philadelphia she again is met by CIA's Special Agent In Charge of the Manhattan Field Office (who might be James McCord himself) and is set up in accommodations at the McGuire Hotel near or at McGuire AFB in New Jersey, 45 minutes from Philadelphia, 90 minutes from New York...and there the trail ends. Supposedly she was put on "space available" status for a MATS flight to destination unknown, but there was no "space available;" the CIA document says that the CIA's Special Agent In Charge of the Manhattan Field Office was "advised that Headquarters could offer no further assistance" to James McCord's wife other than "accommodations permitted under her present orders." Tuesday, 2 April 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald are driven by Michael Paine to a dinner with the Paines at the home of Ruth Hyde Paine, even though the Paines are separated. At the end of the dinner, Ruth purportedly asks Lee for a way to reach him by phone, and he purportedly writes in her address book "O—Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall." [NOTE: But Oswald has received notice of termination at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall just the day before.] Thursday, 4 April 1963 The following article appears in the New Orleans Times-Picayune: Exile Unit Hits Kennedy Order to Continue Liberation Efforts--Spokesman The Cuban Student Directorate of Miami will continue efforts to liberate Cuba, "despite action by the United States to stop raids originating from U. S. soil," a New Orleans delegate to the group has announced Carlos Bringuier, in repeating a statement from the organization, said that Cubans have "never received any efficient support from the United States in their struggle against Communist oppression," and charged that "imprisonment of Cuban leaders by the U. S. and the British - U. S. blockade to curtail attacks of the freedom fighters ... are direct results of negotiations effected last October between the USA and Russia." Bringuier said that the CSD, one of the many revolutionary organizations made up of Cuban exiles and others, protests the agreement because the "will of the Cuban people was not considered." He said the Cubans believe "no one can impair our God-give [sic] right to bring into play whatever measures are necessary to regain the freedom of our country." The Cubans in this country, Bringuier asserted, "never dreamed that the government of the United States would order a mobilization for the defense of the Castro regime." Friday, 5 April 1963 A photo of Lee Harvey Oswald (purportedly taken days before, on 31 March 1963) holding a rifle and carrying a holstered pistol while also holding up two leftist newspapers (The Militant and The Worker) has this date, 5 April 1963, inscribed on the back in the form "5/IV/63." The handwriting later is attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald. Additional unattributed writing says: "Copyright Geo do [sic] M" and the words, in Russian: "Hunter of fascists, ha-ha-ha!" [NOTE: The photo doesn't surface until April 1 (April Fool's Day) 1977, when it is delivered to the House Select Committee on Assassinations by Jeanne de Mohrenshildt, widow of George de Mohrenschildt.] Saturday, 6 April 1963 Robert Surrey, an aide to General Edwin Walker, reported that on Saturday, April 6, 1963, at about 9:00 p.m., "two white men in a 1963 Ford [four door Sedan], dark purple or dark brown, parked in the alley directly behind the complainant's [General Edwin Walker] house. These persons were witnessed getting out of the car and walking up to the property line and smoking the place over." They were dressed in suits. Robert Surrey followed them for thirty minutes as they left the alley and stated: "There was no license plate on this car, either front or rear." Monday, 8 April 1963 There is a flight plan of this date for a flight from New Orleans, piloted by David Ferrie. Passengers listed are Hidell (an alias for Lee Harvey Oswald), Lambert (an alias for Clay Shaw) and Diaz. The destination is Garland, Texas. • On the same day, Robert Surrey, an aide to General Edwin Walker, saw "two men around the house peeking in windows" of the Walker residence. [NOTE: This is a separate event from the 6 April 1963 (see) event purportedly witnessed by Surrey, which also included two men at the Walker residence.] • The evening of 8 April is the last time Lee Harvey Oswald attends a typing class at Crozier Technical School. Wednesday, 10 April 1963 There is an entry this date on Ruth Hyde Paine's calendar with the name "Marina" written in Russian, but an arrow pointing to the next day, Thursday, 11 April 1963. • During the evening, there is a shooting by unidentified person or persons at the home of vocal right-winger General Edwin Walker. [NOTE: This later will be attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald from testimony supplied by Marina Oswald and "evidence" found in the home of Ruth Hyde Paine.] Thursday, 11 April 1963 Gordon Chase, National Security Council Staff at the White House and Special Assistant to President Kennedy for National Security Affairs specializing in Cuban and Latin American National Security Affairs, writes a memo to Special Assistant to the President for National Security McGeorge Bundy. Titled "Cuba-Policy," the memo is suggesting the possibility of a policy shift from a "current nasty policy" to a "sweet approach" aimed at "quietly enticing Castro over to us." Monday, 15 c. April 1963 On or about this date, Silvia Odio begins seeing psychiatrist Dr. Burton C. Einspruch in Dallas, Texas. • On or about the same date ("some time between April 12, 1963, and April 18, 1963"), Lee Harvey Oswald purportedly distributes Fair Play for Cuba Committee materials in Dallas "apparently uneventfully." Thursday, 18 April 1963 An article appears in the New Orleans Times-Picayune: JFK is Reminded of '"Bay of Pigs" A telegram sent to President Kennedy Wednesday by the New Orleans delegate of the Cuban Student Directorate asked that the President not forget the Bay of Pigs. The telegram sent by Carlos Bringuier said: Your promise is now two years old. If the Monroe Doctrine is dead, allow us to fight for our Fatherland. Remember Bay of Pigs." A mass in memory of the dead of the Bay of Pigs invasion was held last Wednesday night...Bringuier said. • On the same day—18 April 1963—a letter on Christmas-themed stationery is mailed from Arlington, Texas to Tony Cuesta in Miami, Florida. The letter says: TO TONY CUESTA ACTIVE? ARDENT AND AUDACIOUS CUBAN PATRIOT and his group ONLY THROUGH ONE DEVELOPMENT WILL YOU CUBAN PATRIOTS EVER LIVE AGAIN IN YOUR HOMELAND AS FREEMEN. RESPONSIBLE AS MUST BE THE MOST CAPABLE? FOR THE GUIDANCE AND WELFARE OF THE CUBAN PEOPLE. NAMELY IF an inspired Act of God should place in the White House within weeks a Texan known to be a friend of all Latin Americans who, though he must under present conditions, bow to the Zionists who have since 1905 come into control of the United States and for whom Jack Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller and other members of the Council of Foreign Relations and allied agencies, are only stooges and pawns, though Johnson must now bow to these crafty and cunning Communist-hatching Jews, yet, did an Act of God suddenly elevate him into the top position, would revert to what his beloved father and grandfather were, and to their values and principles and loyalties. There are sharks in the waters of the Atlantic. Perhaps one of them, or a group, may free you of the Kennedy-Khrushiev [sic] frustrations which now deny you your right to restore your homeland to control of the Cuban people and their own loyal and rightful rulers. A Texan who resents the Oriental influence that has come to control, to degrade, to pollute and enslave his own people • On the same day—18 April 1963—leaflets containing the same text as the letter mailed to Tony Cuesta, but printed with an image of the Alamo on them, are distributed by persons unknown to Cubans in Miami's Little Havana section. • On the same day, CIA's Ted Shackley, with the JM/WAVE installation in Miami, is in touch with William Pawley, millionaire friend of former CIA director Allen Dulles, making plans for Operation Red Cross/Crypt—ostensibly a CIA op to get three defecting Soviets out of Cuba and to the United States. [NOTE: No "Soviet defectors" ever appeared out of this operation, and evidence elsewhere in the timeline indicates strongly that the entire thing was simply a cover for other black operations that included removing the U.S. fleet from strategic positions near Cuba and the Dominican Republic at a time that coincides exactly with George De Mohrenschildt's 1 June 1963 trip to Haiti via the Dominican Republic for involvement in a purported hemp farm operation with Clemard Joseph Charles.] This ends the first half of the chronology of April 1963. The next part immediately following picks up the following day, Friday, 19 April 1963. Ashton Gray

Best laugh I've had in months. Working... Ashton

You might want to mention to John Simkin that your representation is "not challenged," because the Spartacus bio on Hunt says that Hunt's purported visit to Cuba was "in 1959"—not "in July of 1960." It's neither coincidental or noncoincidental, since you haven't documented that Hunt was anywhere near Cuba "in July of 1960." If you have any dispositive evidence, posting it would be worth 1,000 forum pages of ruminating theorizing, and would be worth at least 10,000,000,000,000,000 (to the googolplex) forum pages of false or incorrect "information." Ashton Gray

Bill, your contributions are always well-researched, well-documented, precise, and a joy to read. I'd like to weave into some of what you posted several other events that I believe are relevant, taking things more or less in chronological order rather than the order you posted them in. If you will bear with me, though, I need to lay a little background at the outset that at first blush may seem to be wandering a bit far afield, but I beg your indulgence: First, I want to establish that CIA's E. Howard Hunt was summoned to CIA headquarters on or about 15 March 1960 from an assignment he had been on in Montevideo, Uruguay. In Hunt's own words, my emphasis added: ...[A] cable signed jointly by Richard Bissell and Tracy Barnes summoned me to headquarters [CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia near Washington, D.C.]. ...As principal assistant to Bissell, Tracy Barnes told me I was needed for a new project, much like the one on which I had worked for him in overthrowing Jacobo Arbenz. My job, Tracy told me, would be essentially the same as my earlier one—chief of political action for a project recommended by the National Security Council and just approved by President Eisenhower: to assist Cuban exiles in overthrowing Castro. Representative Cuban leaders were grouping in Florida and New York, and my responsibility would be to organize them into a broadly representative government-in-exile that would, once Castro was disposed of, form a provisional government in Cuba. —E. Howard Hunt Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent As has been carefully timelined, Hunt ostensibly remained in Washington from about mid-March 1960 through mid-July of 1960—according to his claims (at which time he left with his family and went to Mexico City). But as you will see below, it is a moral certainty that during this four-month period from mid-March to mid-July 1960, Hunt, as chief of political action for the (superficially) anti-Castro CIA operations, had to have been very actively involved with the establishment in Coral Gables, Florida—on the outskirts of Miami—of what soon would become CIA's JM/WAVE in Miami. This precursor to CIA's infamous JM/WAVE base at Miami was set up at Coral Gables, Florida in May of 1960—after Hunt had been appointed as chief of political action for the Cuban exiles operations. The cover for the Coral Gables installation was that of "a New York career development and placement firm, backstopped by a Department of Defense contract," the front being known as "Clarence A. Depew and Sons." (This is from an official publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: "Cold War in South Florida; Historic Resource Study", a resource I heartily recommend.) A stunning revelation, though, that has emerged only after timelining all of this information is that E. Howard Hunt, in his autobiography, Undercover, lets the cat out of the bag by admitting that his own "project's forward base" was set up during 1960 "in Coral Gables." So the CIA op going under the cover of "Clarence A. Depew and Sons" beginning in May 1960 in Coral Gables, Florida was in fact the "forward base" for E. Howard Hunt's own Cuban exiles project. In curious coincidence, May 1960 is also the date of the creation of the Frente Revolucionario Democratico (FRD), forerunner of the Cuban Revolutionary Council. Cite: Report by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), "Cuban Revolutionary Council: A Concise History". In yet another curious coincidence, one Carlos Bringuier, a Cuban attorney, left Havana, Cuba on 4 May 1960, traveling to Guatemala. (Of course Bringuier doesn't say why he went to Guatemala, but don't touch that dial...) Just a few months after both the FRD and "Clarence A. Depew and Sons" had been established in May 1960, Hunt took his family and ostensibly went to Mexico City in mid-July 1960. Now, Hunt's claim is that he was setting up this Cuban "government-in-exile" in Mexico City. It's a damned lie, because he had no "government-in-exile" yet (stay tuned), so Hunt's actual activities there—if he was there—are unknown. But he purportedly stayed in Mexico City "through the summer." Of course, Hunt very well could have traveled elsewhere in Central America during that summer of 1960—say, oh, maybe to Guatemala. But maybe not. It's an absolute certainty, though, that someone high up in CIA was very busy in Guatemala during that summer, while Hunt ostensibly was in Mexico City, because in August of 1960 the CIA established the Trax base for training Cuban exiles on the plantation of Roberto Alejos Arzu in Guatemala (which, by the way, is where Carlos Bringuier just happened to be at the time). And, after all, let's not lose sight of the fact that E. Howard Hunt was chief of political action for the Cuban exile operations. So, really, it doesn't matter whether he physically was in Guatemala or not; he was involved in the establishment of Trax. Still can't get enough "coincidences"? Well, how's this for another: during "the summer of 1960"—around this very same time—George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt got a sudden irresistible urge to go on a walking tour through Mexico to Central America. (They ultimately would end up in Guatemala City at the precise time of the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961.) At the end of the summer of 1960, though, Hunt went to Miami, sending his family back to Washington, D.C. And this brings us to CIA's JM/WAVE. As for JM/WAVE itself, quoting from the "Cold War in South Florida" source: "[The Coral Gables] facility was later replaced by the much larger and more extensive JMWAVE operation—backstopped as 'Zenith Technical Enterprises'—at the former Richmond Naval Air Station property leased from the University of Miami." That publication, though, and even the estimable Spartacus history page on JM/WAVE, are silent on when JM/WAVE actually was established. The Spartacus page seems to imply, at least, that it was after the creation of Operation Mongoose, which didn't happen until 4 November 1961, but this would be a very incorrect impression. The earliest official record of JM/WAVE that I have found so far is September 1960, exhumed from Volume 10 of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA): In Miami...investigators interviewed a former career agent for the CIA, who for present purposes will be called Ron Cross. From September 1960 until November 1962, Cross was a case officer at the CIA's JM/WAVE station, the operational base which coordinated the Agency's activities with the anti-Castro exiles. And E. Howard Hunt, chief of political action for "the anti-Castro exiles" operations, came to Miami at the end of the summer of 1960. That would be right around September 1960, just as the Coral Gables operation was being subsumed by or converted to JM/WAVE: ...[W]e [sic] moved to Miami, my family returning to Washington while Central Cover laundered me, i.e., a new name and consonant documentation, and assigned me a safehouse in Coconut Grove, not far from the project's forward base in Coral Gables. ...As my principal assistant, a Cuban American named Bernard L. ('Macho') Barker was assigned to me." —E. Howard Hunt Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent * * * I came to Miami, and of course there were [Cuban] exiles, all anxious to take weapons in hand and charge back [to Cuba]. And the CIA was given the responsibility of a twofold action against Cuba. There was the psychological warfare branch which I headed [propaganda, covert operations], and the paramilitary which oversaw the training [of Cuban exiles] that took place in Guatemala. My [other] responsibility was to form and manage the future government of Cuba. At that point I formed the Cuban government-in-exile with Manuel Artime. —E. Howard Hunt 2004 interview with Slate magazine (Note that here Hunt himself, in the inimitable idiocy of such an inveterate xxxx, admits that he didn't form the "Cuban government-in-exile" until after he arrived in Miami, blowing his earlier excuse for supposedly having been in Mexico City all to hell. Another trademark Hunt footbullet.) Within four months of Hunt's arrival in Miami and the creation of JM/WAVE, Carlos Bringuier came to the United States from Guatemala on Wednesday, 8 February 1961. He arrived in Miami and stayed there for 10 days. JM/WAVE was already a well-established CIA operation in Miami, and E. Howard Hunt was chief of political action for the entire Cuban exile operation. Bringuier never supplied any reason for having stayed in Miami for 10 days when his real destination apparently was New Orleans. Whatever the reason, Carlos Bringuier left Miami and traveled to New Orleans on Saturday, 18 February 1961. Shortly after arriving in New Orleans, Bringuier started cranking out a rag called Crusada "for the Cubans"—whatever that means. (Of course what it actually means is "for the CIA and E. Howard Hunt.") With that foundation laid, I will leave this here for the moment and return later with another post in which at least some of the events you listed are laid out in chronological order, interspersed with other events and information relevant to the foregoing. Ashton

Welcome back, Jack. Ashton

I shouldn't care to interpret your lamentations too broadly, so please correct me if I'm in error, but the only conclusion I can infer from your disquisition is that you prefer that this education forum restrict itself to discussion of the official government conspiracy theories, e.g.: A beturbaned cripple holed up in a cave half a world away exercised uncanny powers of control and financing that were entirely invisible to all the governments and intelligence agencies of the world, and thereby induced 19 suicide terrorists to carry out a complex and ingenious, if heinous, plot to hijack four American passenger planes at the same time—using box cutters—to attack and destroy the largest and most important centers of commerce in the largest city of the most powerful nation in the world, and also (while you're up) to launch an attack on the very military headquarters of the most powerful nation in the world, situated in the most heavily protected city in the world. According to this government-generated conspiracy theory, three steel-framed buildings accommodatingly pancaked as a result of fire—the only such buildings in history ever to have accomplished such a feat. So is it, in fact, your position that conspiracy theories are fine to discuss, but only if they are the ones that were generated by a properly constituted government, and that mere citizens should not question such comical and outré fictions, but, contrariwise, limit their discussion to praise and confirmation of those official conspiracy theories? Ashton Gray I'm afraid you misunderstood the general drift of what I was trying to communicate. My "position", as you put it, is that there should be far less domination of the forum by ANY conspiracy theories, government-sponsored or otherwise. It is abundantly clear that such matters are absorbingly interesting to some, and may even be a legitimate subject for research. However, they are of very limited interest to most educators. At this point, I'm obviously leaving myself open to a strom of abuse from gentlemen such as Mr Drago to the effect that I'm obviously deficient as a teacher in that I don't re-write the entire curriculum to base it solely on the various conspiracies which have dominated the forum over recent years. But the fact remains that most educators are much more interested in the Battle of the Somme, the Nuremberg Trials, Citizenship Education, and so on, than we are in "chem trails" or "faked photos". All right. I understand that from a teaching standpoint, and there should be not a zephyr of abuse, much less a full-fledged storm, about it. It does seem to me, though, that Mssrs. Simkin and Walker have done a yeomanlike job of providing a wealth of forum sections and sub-forums where nary a conspiracy rears its hideous head, that they have broken the sections down into perfectly logical groupings, and that they, in their wisdom, have exhibited all due diligence in titling this section "Controversial Issues in History." Now, short of putting beneath that title in red 72-point type, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here," I can't seem to conjure up what more they could have done to inculcate in those of delicate and scholarly sensibilities an understanding that we are dealing herein with issues that have not been shaped and molded by the oh-so-creative hands of "historians" and baked in enough classrooms to become hand-painted ceramic figurines to be put up on the dusty knick-knack shelves of the History Department. Yes, there are technical issues with the way the board has been set up, which have affected more than a few people. The failure or refusal to acknowledge and take effective steps to deal with those certainly has played a part in creating situations like the one that gave rise to this thread. Ashton

Tosh Plumlee was there on a mission for and acting on orders of CIA. So, just to correct the record: Tosh Plumlee—who has admitted working for CIA—has said that he smelled "gunsmoke." Ashton P.S. For trivia fans: Plumlee has claimed that he was called "Zapata" because it's Spanish for "shoe," and he had lost a shoe while on "a mission." More precisely, though, "zapata" means "boot;" "zapato" means "shoe." Why split hairs? Why indeed. I certainly wouldn't. But I will observe in passing that there's a slang term that doesn't get too much currency: "bootless errand." Its synonyms include: fool's errand, merry chase, red herring, snipe hunt. CIA and its minions would never just shove it right in your face like that, though. Y'all have fun.

I shouldn't care to interpret your lamentations too broadly, so please correct me if I'm in error, but the only conclusion I can infer from your disquisition is that you prefer that this education forum restrict itself to discussion of the official government conspiracy theories, e.g.: A beturbaned cripple holed up in a cave half a world away exercised uncanny powers of control and financing that were entirely invisible to all the governments and intelligence agencies of the world, and thereby induced 19 suicide terrorists to carry out a complex and ingenious, if heinous, plot to hijack four American passenger planes at the same time—using box cutters—to attack and destroy the largest and most important centers of commerce in the largest city of the most powerful nation in the world, and also (while you're up) to launch an attack on the very military headquarters of the most powerful nation in the world, situated in the most heavily protected city in the world. According to this government-generated conspiracy theory, three steel-framed buildings accommodatingly pancaked as a result of fire—the only such buildings in history ever to have accomplished such a feat. So is it, in fact, your position that conspiracy theories are fine to discuss, but only if they are the ones that were generated by a properly constituted government, and that mere citizens should not question such comical and outré fictions, but, contrariwise, limit their discussion to praise and confirmation of those official conspiracy theories? Ashton Gray

Good. It's disappointing to see how his detractors have used his absence and this thread as an opportunity to denigrate him. I praise him for his work, which has advanced investigation and analysis immeasurably on several important fronts. His work has invited and inspired generations to inspect and question "official" lines of propaganda. No matter how many detractors he has, they will never measure up to a thousandth of the people who have been motivated by his work and independent thinking. That is his legacy, and it will outlive his every critic. Ashton Gray

On this point, we are in consummate agreement. It will be a fleeting, if shining, moment... You know, I've been around a lot of rhetorical blocks in my too-many years, but I have to say that this stands among the most specious, sophistic apologias I've had the bad fortune to meet. And that alone is "quite amazing." The wonder is that such a gossamer gown would be worn to strut a such misshapen wretch of an argument. It would be obvious to even the most obtuse that if you had, in fact, successfully "shown that Jack was wrong," you would not have wasted a single syllable trying to get Jack to "admit" anything. Speaking in your own defense, you indict and convict yourself by confession of attacking the man instead of trying to seek and demonstrate truth. You lay your own motives embarrassingly bare. You should recuse yourself as a "moderator" of anything. Principles should. Ashton Gray

Okay: now that I know the facts, I'll join you. Jack jumped the gun on with unfounded assumptions in the situation at issue, but if a mistake like that can't simply be cleaned up with an apology and correction from someone with Jack's track record, while the likes of Bill Miller goes right on flinging bold-faced dung with sneering wild abandon all over page after page after page after page after page after page after tiresome page of the forum, and not only is condoned but endorsed, I believe conscience dictates a stand for civilized ethics. Ashton Gray

Alan, There is no smoke, swirls or otherwise, in these frames. Miller cannot even point to any objects or even any features in these frames which Miller himself is seemingly suggesting are evidence of smoke. Wonder what the reason is for this complete absence of specificity? Ain't no smoke. My hunch is that what is going on is this: Miller thought, apparently for some years, that "C" was a smoke swirl. Then, I pointed out the obvious lens patina. Then, someone realised that "C" was only lens surface gunk grunge. Then, it was time for someone to do this = You know the drill. Alan and Miles: If (that's the proverbial "big 'if'" you've heard so much about) you were dealing with anything but an inveterate xxxxx whose sole stock in trade is number of sabotaged forum pages, this wouldn't now have run to 21 forum pages, mostly of bold-faced useless effluvium. Of course A and B are leaves, and A resolves every bit as sharply as does B: And now, here is a heart-felt plea: please, please stop feeding the xxxxx. Please? Just let him twist in the wind with his "smoke." Ashton

You may be right, Ashton. If nothing else, this thread has allowed us to use the word "moderation" and the name "Jack White" in the same sentence. So let's clear this up, if we can. Is Jack being moderated? While I don't know officially and putting the officials on the 'spot' will not let them simply remove the sanction and claim it never existed, I am led to believe yes he is. He [Jack] interpreted this as meaning that Evan Burton would be his personal parole officer and Jack refuse to post anything. I'd note that Evan had a] long history of countering Jack's posts and b] a signature for some days specific to Jack that was IMO not one a moderator should have have - since removed. I think no great evil has been done by anyone, but I think bias has occured, and Jack should be warned and allowed to post again. I sense a great sense of growing unease on the Forum otherwise. Sheesh.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11118 I'll see your "Sheesh..." and raise you two. Thanks. I previously had only been able to find the "other" thread (that Peter since posted a link to). Ashton

I love a good cause as much as the next guy, but it seems from my search and reading that Jack White attempted to post in another sub-forum when he was not logged in and got the standard (if non-specific) error message that generates. Andy Walker confirmed that in the relevant thread in that sub-forum. There are more than enough actual issues, and I hope that Jack will post here to confirm that rumors of his moderation have been greatly exaggerated. (And that is a perfectly wicked multi-layered pun cake, leavened with my fondness for Jack.) Ashton

Was there another Kemp Clark standing next to Perry as he cut through the small wound in the President's neck? Rx for cognitive myopia: DR. CLARK: "I remember using the phrase to describe the location of a wound in the President's throat as being at the point of his knot of his necktie. I do not recall ever specifically stating that this was an entrance wound, as has been said before. I was not present when the President arrived and did not see this wound." An education forum is a terrible thing to waste. Ashton I am sorry, Ashton ... but I am not buying it. <*PLONK*> How he wormed out of my twit file in the first place is beyond me, but I make this solemn oath to the rational people who post and read here: it will not happen again. Ever. Under any circumstances. Ashton Gray

Was there another Kemp Clark standing next to Perry as he cut through the small wound in the President's neck? Rx for cognitive myopia: DR. CLARK: "I remember using the phrase to describe the location of a wound in the President's throat as being at the point of his knot of his necktie. I do not recall ever specifically stating that this was an entrance wound, as has been said before. I was not present when the President arrived and did not see this wound." An education forum is a terrible thing to waste. Ashton

Continuing our scintillating discussion, Dawn... "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." There is no satisfactory evidence or even consensus that anyone ever has accurately identified a direction source of the reports with anything rising even close to an evidentiary standard. I've also said before, and it has not been countered, that both smoke (if there ever was any smoke, other than the smoke that has been blown all over the case) and reports could been created without gunfire as a diversion. Given that Decker immediately ordered everybody into the railroad yard/parking lot, given that Perry—who destroyed the throat evidence—immediately sowed the idea of a frontal shot, it would not be inconsistent at all that some sort of diversionary report or flash or smoke or all the above would have come from the area, while the shots came from somewhere else entirely. In fact, every description I've ever seen of the alleged smoke, flash, and report from the fence area is inconsistent with a professional sniper's rifle, while being entirely consistent with special effect flashpots. It's another snipe hunt. There are no snipes. (Parenthetically: of course, if one postulates a "conspiracy" carried out by people who would be in awe of the cunning intelligence of Larry, Moe, and Curly, then there are no red herrings involved, and everything is just as it appears. Funny, though, that idiots like that got away with it. And while I'm being merely parenthetical, I can think of nothing more characteristic of supercilious elitist bastards like Helms, Hunt, and their fellow CIA scum than to employ and enjoy a sadistic twist on their show by providing a "smoking gun" [they love nothing more than to put it right in your face] where no gun ever was for the diversion, entertainment, and everlasting awe and confusion of the crowd of gullible gawkers who had grown up hypnotized by the smoking-gun adventures of Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, and the Cisco Kid. Bang-bang.) Oh, what hogwash. The entire Front Shot Faith is impossible to sustain without "blowback" to account for the ejecta from Kennedy's head, yet "blowback" suddenly ceases to exist as a phenomenon for a "rear shot." Such is faith. Such is religion. Such is mythology. Amen. Hallelujah. Pass the donation plate and write a book. Well, now, there's a gracious concession. Unfortunately (though not for me), that narrows the field significantly. Here is a new version of the chart reflecting that, and I've accommodatingly moved the count for your impeached witness, Jones, over into the "ENTRANCE WOUND" column: Expecting you to have the same problem with that image that you had with the other, here is a link directly to the image, and here is yet another link to a PDF version, and this is a link to an html table of the same chart. Would you like to take that case for an "entrance bullet wound" into a court? If so, I think my fondest wish would be an opportunity to be opposing counsel. Wholeheartedly. But there was no bullet wound to John F. Kennedy's throat that came from the front. In fact, there was no bullet wound to John F. Kennedy's throat at all. But I'll be posting more on that soon. Elsewhere. Ashton