Charles Drago

Someone flying to Havana via Redbird and Mexico City is hardly "irrevocable proof," is it?

It's "irrevocable proof" (in context with all the other evidence) for public consumption, in the same sense that the Bush regime presented irrevocable proof of WMDs in Iraq. All that was needed for an invasion.

Intent is indicative of guilt. Inculpatory. See O.J. Simpson, cash and disguise at hand, on the lam.

The JCS (members of which, to my way of thinking, were in on the scam) would have been more than satisfied with LHO's intent to flee. All the other "evidence" would have amounted to sufficient support for retaliation. Don't forget the 1960s Americans we're talking about: a naive, easily led-by-the-nose populace with the political sophistication of a soft shell crab.

Oops. Maybe change is not the irrevocable constant.

As for LHO in custody: After he dies, his "confession" is brought to the public eye: "I did it all for Fidel!"

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

The difference would be that he actually got to Havana from Dallas. Just as Oswald disappears, a plane takes off from Redbird, and later one person, had to be Oswald, is seen catching an exclusive flight from Mexico City to Havana. This would be the icing on the cake in the portrayal of Oswald as a Castro agent. In public perception, that would be far more convincing than the fact that Oswald handed out leaflets in New Orleans and went to Mexico City about a visa.

The "irrefutable proof" that Oswald fled to Castro (including, so I read, some luggage left in Mexico City) went down the tubes with Oswald's arrest. With Oswald sitting in jail, calling himself a patsy and asking for a New York lawyer, the plotters simply didn't have enough to make a case against Castro. So they didn't. They decided that a lone-nut assassin was in jail, until they could get rid of him.

Getting to Havana and having tried and failed to get to Havana equals a distinction without a difference. Both would work equally well.

Ron, I really think you're grasping at straw men here.

Respectfully,

Charles

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

For the final time:

No difference whatsoever. In either case the patsy cannot contradict the

"irrevocable proof" he was an instrument of Fidel.

It was the Joint Chiefs who set the bar for the "irrevocable proof" requirement

for an invasion, as laid out in the Feb '62 memo on Operation Dirty Tricks (see

Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 84).

A captured suspect doesn't establish "irrevocable proof" of his guilt when he's loudly

proclaiming his innocence, does he?

Someone flying to Havana via Redbird and Mexico City is hardly "irrevocable proof," is it?

The key word here is "movement."

To this very day pundits searching for a "gotcha" moment will confront political figures with contradictions between, say, their current policy positions and previously offered, contradictory stances.

And almost none of these exalted statesmen or women exhibit the insight and courage necessary to respond, "Would you have me learn nothing from experience? Would you have me impervious to change?"

John and Robert Kennedy did not arrive on the national stage fully formed. They did not make their exits without having matured as thinkers, politicians, statesmen, and human beings.

Was JFK a Liberal? When?

What is a liberal?

Charles

Was the cur a her?

Finally, kuBARK begins to make sense.

Double the pleasure, double the fun.

RCD,

We have come to the point where we must respectfully agree to disagree on the invasion/no invasion issue. To torture the tennis analogy, we are experiencing endless love. So here’s my final serve, and I eagerly await your (final?) return.

You write, “It is important for us to distinguish between what the plotters of the assassination planned, and what actually transpired, to the extent that we can do so and to the extent that there is a difference between the two, but only based upon evidence.”

Agreed.

“It is even more important to distinguish between the plotters themselves, and all those who aided and abetted the coverup of the crime, for they are not synonymous. … It is a common failing to assume that all those who participated in the coverup must also, ergo, have been witting participants in the crime. It is a logical fallacy, and must be eschewed at all costs, for otherwise there will never be any truth disclosed.”

Agreed. I have never argued to the contrary, and I share your sense that, absent acceptance of this reality, the search for truth and justice will prove futile.

“Sweeping generalizations of who must have been involved don't do credit to any of us, unless we bolster those assertions with indisputable, legally compelling hard fact. To do otherwise is to become a ‘buff,’ which I am not and don't intend to become …Consequently, without wishing to appear as though I'm trying to absolve LBJ, Harriman or anyone else in such high positions of power, I refrain from making such assertions because I've yet to see sufficient proof of their involvement; by which I mean evidence that carries legal weight.”

Agreed. My previously posted list of possible “facilitators” was not meant to be an indictment sheet – see my “and/or others” construction – but rather an indication of my current thinking. And yes, “buff” be damned. So too “conspiracist” and other demeaning descriptions of the best of us.

“Any criminal investigator begins at the bottom of the crime's possible pyramid of characters and then works his way up the food chain, using the lower echelon players to implicate those higher up.”

Agreed. Hence my oft-repeated plea: Establish the “how,” then reverse-engineer what we’ve discovered to identify its manufacturer and purposes.

“Which does not mean this was the plotters' intent, only that it is how things played out. If you have some probative proof that this was the plotters' intent, then you can make a case for your claim. What we have from you at present is vehemently stated opinion, which is no substitute for reasons to believe that opinion.”

With all due respect, I have not seen “probative proof” of what you maintain was the plotter’s intent. All you can say with certainty is that LHO was set up to appear to be a Castro agent. Agreed. WHY was this done? You and I offer conflicting, speculative answers, one as good as the other. On more than one occasion I carefully have prefaced my posts with the stipulation that what I offer is hypothesis, or – for me at least – logical inference based upon an understanding of the times, events, and characters under consideration.

“[T]he plan moves forward when Oswald disappears, and then the breadcrumb trail of evidence implicating him leads all the way to Havana …”

Oswald effectively disappeared when Ruby waved his magic wand. And again, you have failed to convince me and others how LHO in the custody of a corrupt, eminently controllable law enforcement agency possibly could have scuttled the invasion plan. I repeat: Get creative. Write the scene. What does Oswald have to say to force the change in plans? To whom must he say it?

“[T]his presupposes that the plotters and those in charge of the government were synonymous.”

We’re begging definitions here, but I’ll keep this short and sweet. You correctly describe my position. And like you, I have nothing of probative value to support the claim that LBJ was a “plotter” or that he was “in charge of the government” as you use the terms.

“We know from Northwoods that the Pentagon and some administration hardliners were so keen to overthrow Castro that they conceived pretexts to achieve same, including, if necessary, the deaths of US citizens in a false flag operation for which Cuba could be blamed. Yet you insist that there was never any real desire to effect regime change in Havana, based solely upon the fact that it didn't happen.”

Wrong. In fact I insist that, in spite of the well-established desire on the part of certain undeniably powerful political, military, and civilian interests to change the Havana regime, those whose greater power and putative authority were required to launch the invasion would not pull the trigger. The Northwoods plans of which we’re aware were not realized, either.

“If US interests had no desire for such regime change in Havana, how does one explain away the little trifle known as the Bay of Pigs?”

The only constant is change.

“I say again the following, as clearly as I can and hopefully for the final time as this is getting truly tedious. The plotters desired two things: the removal of a President who had been obstinately refusing the rebuffing their plans on a number of fronts [not merely Cuba, so don't misread what I haven't written] and foresaw the additional benefit of regime change in Cuba.”

You write of “plotters” as if they were a monolithic, single-minded entity. Some of the plotters – at what I term the “facilitator” level – desired Castro’s overthrow. Such was the prize on which their pre-assassination eyes were tightly focused. These kind folk surely were disappointed, but only for a time. Most of them went on to bigger and better things, from lucrative employment by the secret world, to immense power and profit at the bank of Viet Nam. Others were marginalized or simply ceased to be.

“So, as if for the first time, clear your mind of all prior facts, thoughts, biases and conclusions. Then consider the chronology of events below [omitted for brevity’s sake] … ”

Steady, Robert. My state of mind is just fine, thank you. And I restate for the final time – and please, try to focus – I haven’t the slightest problem with your chronology. It is brilliantly and convincingly (to a point) presented Clear enough?

“Unnamed sources disclose that a light plane left Redbird airfield soon after the assassination.”

Even with LHO in custody, it could have been argued that his Cuban accomplices were on board.

“Unnamed sources disclose the discovery of luggage in the name of Lee Oswald at Mexico City airport.”

Even with LHO in custody, it could have been argued that his luggage had been brought by accomplices.

“Having gone to all the trouble to lay on this patina of superficially compelling evidence of Cuban complicity, why wouldn't there have been an invasion? It's a gimme; two for the price of one … And yet you maintain, without providing the slightest evidence for the assertion, that all of the above details were purely intended for a private audience, to frighten them into compliance with the coverup, and would never have found a broader audience.”

And yet you maintain that an invasion would have taken place if LHO had been handled according to plan. But you cannot or will not make a convincing argument that illustrates how LHO’s capture and 48-hour survival could have amounted to anything more than a hiccup – an unanticipated turn of events relatively easy to control and spin into a manageably altered invasion-justifying narrative.

“And yet you maintain, without providing the slightest evidence for the assertion, that because there was no active plan for an invasion [citation please], there couldn't have been a post-assassination invasion [citation please], solely because it did not happen. This circular reasoning seems based upon evidence which you've yet to present.”

Perhaps you are misreading me, perhaps I was less than artful in a previous post. Contrary to your assertion, I believe I’ve written that plans for an invasion of Cuba likely were active and evolving and being gamed before, during, and after the assassination. No circle.

“And yet I have never suggested that Oswald was to die, at least not in any public fashion. Somebody, irrespective of whom, had to walk across that tarmac in Mexico City to flee to Havana, or at least be reported to have done so. ‘Oswald’ couldn't have done that if he were either publicly known to be dead or in police custody, which is the rub.”

Oswald’s accomplices – the other gunmen – would have served the purpose. If you are correct, then all of the pre-assassination sheepdipping of LHO as a Cuban-backed triggerman had to be sufficient to seal the deal, regardless of the patsy’s post-assassination whereabouts. If “Oswald” doesn’t walk across the tarmac – no big deal. Others do He’s still attached to Fidel at the hip. Invasion on!

“Feel free to reference whatever facilitators/false sponsors you like - but in light of the scenario I've described above, none of those you've named would have had the power to withstand the desire of the populace to exact revenge upon Castro.”

Talk about circular. Anyway, the scenario you describe was indeed in place and ready for public release. Yet we agree that it was held back. Here is the crux of our disagreement: WHY was it held back? Your only answer is, because Oswald got caught – a rationale that simply does not hold up under questioning.

“[H]ow does one justify presenting the Pentagon with ever greater budgetary appropriations if they never actually do anything with the money?”

A question for the ages, I’m afraid. Cuba was one piece in the “commie menace” jigsaw puzzle, a piece that was eclipsed but by no means stripped of value by the vastly greater menace in Southeast Asia. Cuba was of immense propaganda value to the war machine (as it is today) – value that would disappear if the Havana regime were changed. “They’re right off our shores, we must do what it takes to remain vigilant, regardless of the cost.” That sort of bull.

"Had Oswald been presumed to reside in Havana after the assassination, all eyes would have turned southward, in a heartbeat. Followed by boots on the ground and death from above.”

Evidence, please. Citation, please. No? Then such is simply your informed and honorable opinion, which I respect but with which I simply cannot agree. For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

Time for strawberries and cream?

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

"Tedious" indeed.

My FINAL serve will cross the net on the morrow.

Until then: Upon initial RE-reading, nothing you offer -- and most of it is as eloquently presented as it is soundly researched (as opposed to reasoned) -- moves me from the "no invasion planned" position.

Sleep well. And thanks again to all for your passionate, mostly reasonable responses.

Charles Drago

"Conspiracy in the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is historical fact."

Charles Drago

Charles, can you give me the top three non-contravertible reasons that establish the existence of a conspiracy?

Thanks!

P.S. I ask this question not only to develop this thread but also for possible suggestions for an ad re the assassination, being discussed in another thread.

Tim,

If the proposed ad is to have any positive impact on the quest for justice in this case, in my opinion it must focus exclusively on the "how" of the assassination and assiduously avoid discussions of the "who" and "why" investigative areas.

The answer to "how" JFK was killed -- by criminal conspirators -- can proven to the degree of metaphysical certitude.

My top three may not be yours. FWIW:

The impossibility of the SBT.

Medical evidence for multiple head shots.

Eyewitness, earwitness, and electronic evidence for an assassin to the front of the limousine at the time of the shooting.

David Lifton has it right. The body is the best evidence.

Charles

Cliff,

We are destined to disagree. But this is fun, so:

You quote Larry Hancock thusly: "[We should] first view the conspiracy to frame Oswald as a Castro (or both Cuban and Soviet associated) conspirator, a plan that became totally unraveled when Oswald was taken into custody. And second, we see that the so-called 'cover-up' was an independent, largely unplanned and highly reactive effort to ensure that a Lee Harvey Oswald would [take] the fall all by himself -- as a lone nut."

I truly dig disagreeing with experts and other correspondents for whom I harbor the utmost respect; in the former category I place RCD and LH. And your expertise is also highly valued. That being said ... you're all so very wrong!

The conspiracy to frame Oswald as a Cuban and/or Soviet conspirator did not come close to unraveling -- although I'm willing to stipulate that the patsy's survival to 11/24 might have minimally frayed an edge of the plot's fabric.

My proof? In spite of (as you might put it) Oswald's survival, the legend of his commie sponsorship was strong enough to convince the likes of Earl Warren and others to shut up and support the LN lie.

Further, I've yet to read anyone's explantion of how a living LHO could have said or done anything to scuttle an invasion plan that in turn could not be tossed into the memory hole.

Get creative. Write the scene. What does Oswald have to say? To whom does he say it?

Soon enough he's dead, and the plan can move forward.

Except there was no real plan to invade Cuba.

The invasion of Cuba didn't happen because the sponsors of the assassination didn't want it to happen. Never did.

And yes, perhaps LHO's short-term, post-assassination survival did necessitate improvisations on the plot's basic theme. Merde happens. Any plotters worth the name understand this, and prepare to react if need be.

But wait, you say. The evidence against LHO as lone nut is so weak, today no one in his or her right mind could possibly accept it without challenge ...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Has the parent state ever truly abandoned the LN lie (HSCA's conclusion notwithstanding -- anything)? Is not the parent state's imprimatur still the only endorsement that counts? That is powerful enough to deny justice?

WHAT IF LHO dies on 11/22/63? Nothing else changes. The faux commie connections still function to disarm honest investigators, the LN lie still is promoted.

WHAT IF the LN "evidence" is transparently bogus? Which it is. The parent state endorses it, so it is official, which means it is as real and as powerful and as persuasive as it has to be to protect the sponsors and their great game.

None of my previously referenced facilitators/false sponsors -- including LBJ and JEH and the JCS -- had the power to do anything about the Cuba disappointment.

Cuba was marginalized. Cuba was an asset.

All eyes turned far eastward.

Charles

Cliff,

We arrive at the core of our disagreement.

You write, "Again, you're assuming the same guys who plotted the murder engaged in the 'lone nut' cover-up.

"The plot failed. Period. One of the key players, Harriman, was a big loser, imo."

_________________________________________________________________

The plot succeeded beyond all expectations. The plotters had one -- and only one -- goal: the elimination of JFK in the form of a lesson for all who would follow.

The LN cover-up was part of the plot from its nascent stages.

There were three tiers of conspirators, each to varying degrees hierarchical in nature: sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics. Suspects for involvement at the mid-level include the likes of Phillips, Lansdale, Fursetseva, Andropov, Conein, King, Harvey, Morales, Simpson, Rosselli, and/or others. The organizations and interests with which they remain identified may be labeled "false sponsors." In terms of making the cover-up work: the more the merrier.

George Michael Evica describes a large segment of them succinctly and powerfully: "a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences." (emphasis added)

At the lowest level are the hunters and their wingmen/women.

At the highest level? The aforementioned masters, for whom perpetuation of the Cold War was the ultimate goal.

To the degree that JFK personified the threat of peace, and Castro stood then as now as a critically important component in the overall plan to preserve manageable East-West hostilities in order to perpetuate and maximize profit and power for the masters, the former had to go, and the latter had to stay.

Khrushchev was soon to follow JFK as a victim of, in his case, a bloodless coup as ordered by the same masters, for the same reasons.

Now I'm not comfortable with the melodrama inherent in use of terms like "the masters." So let's be a tad more verbose and identify those at the sponsorship level of the assassination as the proprietors of -- with apologies to Frank Loesser -- the oldest established permanent floating crap game in the world.

And I mean crap.

Charles

RCD,

Please don't interpret the brevity of this response as a dismissal of your just-posted essay and its many well-taken points. I number myself among those readers of the Forum who respect your work and derive enjoyment and enlightenment from it.

Of course it would have been anticipated by the "no invasion intended" top-level plotters that some, or even most, of the elements of their Oswald frame would be exposed to public scrutiny. But their ace in the hole was then and is now the near absolute power of the parent state to control its political, military, propaganda, and law enforcement assets -- and thus control the historical record and the public mood.

If the parent state truly desired to link LHO to Castro in such a fashion as to justify the launch of a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, then it would have done so -- regardless of the patsy's whereabouts and vital signs.

Your treatment of the sheep-dipping operation is quite brilliant, and my own thinking is pretty much in accord with your proffered story lines and chronologies. The LHO-Castro linkage had to be convincing to its target audience as I've previously described it -- and clearly it proved to be just that.

The subsequent public trashing of the "evidence" indicating Castro's complicity went off without a major hitch. The WC did its job, the imprimatur of the state sealed the LN lie in the "historical truth" folder, and the necessary villain in Havana continues to play his role in the great game.

I would like to address your following observation,rendered in May Day red:

"There is another - what I would call - minor flaw in the Phase One/Two scenario. Yes, the threat of nuclear war was used to induce otherwise decent people to collude in a crude coverup. Of this there can be no doubt. But to suggest that the plotters would know this in advance, and be correct, stretches my credulity for two reasons.

"First, it confers upon them a Godlike ability to read the future, and shape it to their precise liking. This is too all-knowing and all-powerful an attribute to not trouble common sense."

"Second, it presumes that all in command positions would balk at a nuclear confrontation, when several among the Joint Chiefs had been fomenting for just such an outcome for years. As a cudgel to bludgeon people into compliance, the threat of nuclear war wouldn't have worked with a great number among the Pentagon brass. To the contrary, some low people in high places would have been only too pleased at the prospect of prosecuting a nuclear war. How could the plotters have been so certain which Cabinet and military people would prefer a coverup to a final solution to the Commie problem?"

The Pentagon brass were then, as they were in Smedley Butler's day and are to this very day, the racketeers, and not the bosses. They were mollified by the fact that the continuing, post-assassination non-threat of Castro off their shores in no small way helped guarantee that the JCS's power and budgets would not be diminished. Castro was ... convenient. (He still is.) The bigger issue at hand was Southeast Asia.

Charles

Will do, Charles, will do...

As to the Harriman-Johnson meeting, which occurred minutes after LBJ's arrival at

the White House the evening of 11/22/63, isn't it amazing that "the U.S. government's

top Kremlinologists" cracked the case in a matter of hours, at least to the extent

they could categorically exclude Soviet involvement?

That's BS, of course. It was Harriman's way of ordering LBJ to back off the

"Commie conspiracy" angle.

I don't have to disagree with this assessment to maintain my "no invasion intended" argument. The faction that includes Harriman and that you and Salandria reference was virtually at the top of the conspiracy. LBJ was not.

Salandria's speculation regarding Bonesman Bundy in the Situation Room is

consistent with Bonesman Harriman at the WH making his case for non-Communist

involvement.

With whom did Johnson first speak when he got to the White House?

Bundy, ten minutes before Harriman showed up.

With whom did Johnson meet first thing the following morning?

Bundy.

So far, no contradiction to my position.

The die was cast when Oswald was captured alive: the dream of a US

invasion of Cuba in retaliation was as dead as Kennedy himself.

HOLD IT! There is an unbridgeable chasm between your presentation of the Bonesmen business and the "conclusion" that LHO alive blew the invasion operation. Non sequitur, I'm afraid.

Bamford's Body Of Secrets, pg 84:

(quote on)

On February 20, 1962, [John] Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida,

on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of

truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But [Chairman of

the JCS] Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to [Operation

Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective

is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]."

This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of

evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus,

as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were

preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pre-text to launch a war.

(quote off)

Same line of thinking went into the JFK assassination, which was plotted by

the some of the same people (Lansdale), imo.

"The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies

with the Communists et al Cuba."

The capture of Oswald deprived the plotters of their ultimate objective, the

"irrevocable proof" standard which would have allowed them to make the

case for Castro complicity.

The powers-that-be pulled the plug on the Cuba-invasion plans not so much out

of fear of World War III, but out of the conviction that they couldn't make the

case against Castro stick.

HOLD IT! You are seriously arguing that two days worth of unrecorded LHO protestations of innocence would be enough to cancel out all the other false evidence? This doesn't pass the laugh test.

Tell me: What could LHO have said or done that couldn't be either explained later as the bleatings and posturings of a guilty man trying unto death to protect his evil Cuban masters or permanently dispatched to the memory hole?

I'll give you the answer: NOTHING!

The plotters continued to try to make that case, to no avail.

As I noted in my previous post, I don't think this was a case of

"cooler heads" so much as "cold feet" on the part of Harriman.

Charles Drago

My misread.

Jack,

To restate your question: Do I agree that "ANYONE PARTICIPATING IN THE COVERUP OF THE ASSASSINATION IS AN ACCESSORY TO THE ASSASSINATION"?

I'll phrase it this way: To this layman (non-lawyer), anyone knowingly participating in the cover-up of any felony -- which is to say, obstructing justice --is to be considered an accessory after the fact.

Further, we are in agreement that the cover-up is a major component of the plot, one that continues to this very second.

Charles

Cliff,

I should revise as follows: "I can't accept that fingers were on hair triggers -- fingers authorized to pull them."

Helms, regardless of who is quoting him, is simply not credible.

Were certain false sponsors of the assassination ready and willing to hit Cuba? Absolutely. Were they frustrated by the failure of the USG at its highest level to give the order? But of course.

So what?

They were controlled.

You write, "The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the lone assassin...McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth."

In this paragraph you blend reportage with opinion. The latter is detected in your use of the word "prematurely."

To which I respond: Sez you.

I sez that early (as opposed to the "p" word) Situation Room control of the LN cover story supports the "no invasion intended" argument.

You write, "Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association."

Quite true. A strike against Cuba, then, insofar as it likely would have provoked significant Soviet retaliation and escalating American counter-moves, never could have been launched in the immediate aftermath of the assassination -- the only slim window an "invasion intended" argument enjoys. (Sez me.)

You write, "The capture of the innocence-proclaiming Oswald deprived the plotters of 'irrevocable proof' that Castro was behind the assassination, and thus control of the cover-up was lost."

I don't buy this for a nanosecond. So LHO is denying everything. As a Castro agent would be expected to do. And to whom? To individuals who would have been easy to control.

This for me is the fatal flaw in your position: The survival of LHO until 11/24 would have been -- at most -- a temporary and easily rectified inconvenience to the "invasion intended" planners.

By all means let's carry on an increasingly fascinating exchange.

Charles Drago

RCD,

We share similar levels of respect for Peter Dale Scott's mind, manner, and literary gifts.

And you're correct: We go our separate ways as I move with Professor Scott down the "no invasion intended" path.

There is no reason to believe that a disappeared LHO's alleged connections to a Castro-originating plot would have been made public in a manner that was any more impervious to an official LN finding than in fact they were. Regardless of the patsy's vital signs, the intended audience -- uncorrupted investigators and government officials -- would have been (and in fact were) persuaded to cover up the alleged communist conspiracy out of fear of a retributive launching of WWIII.

You write that acceptance of this scenario " ... pre-supposes that those in charge of making the invasion plans were witting of the assassination in advance, waited only for their pretext to be executed, and that despite having their finger on the trigger aimed at Havana, they balked when the time came to fire."

I suspect that plans for the invasion of Cuba were extant long before 11/22/63 and were constantly upgraded via gaming and other means, and that planners were awaiting some sort of precipitating event. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that a retaliatory landing would have followed on the heels (within days) of JFK's murder, so I can't accept that fingers were on hair triggers.

Additionally, you write that, "Moreover, Dr. Scott's Phase One/Phase Two conjecture, while neat and tidy, is - to me, at least - entirely too neat and tidy. It presupposes that the plotters correctly divined in advance what the responses would be from all parties involved. It further presupposes that what transpired is precisely what was planned. Perhaps others lead a life so predictable, but my own experience of life on this planet is somewhat different."

Again, I have a problem with your sense of pre-supposition. As I noted previously in my perhaps overarching "figured bass" metaphor, the planners of what we surely agree was/is a conspiracy of Baroque complexity must have anticipated that there would be unanticipated events and consequences generated by their actions. I doubt they would have been foolish enough to believe that they had covered every possible bet.

As you write, "Because Ruby's recruit, Tippit, had failed to carry out his assignment, and Oswald was captured, the job switched from making Oswald disappear to making Oswald dead, which fell to Ruby. To me, that seems less a case of PLAN B than it does awkward ad-libbing."

"Ad-libbing?" Most likely. "Awkward?" Well, it worked.

Finally, you write, " ... it seems to me that a number of people went to a great deal of trouble to colour the immediate post-assassination perception of Oswald as Castro-sponsored, and to lay on an 'escape route' leading directly to Havana. Had that portion of it gone according to what I surmise was their plan, all would have been left thinking that Oswald and Castro were smoking Monte Cristos and clinking their Cuba Libre glasses in celebration on the beach. With that residual impression, would things really have turned out the way they did, or would the Marines have hoisted a victory flag in Havana within days?

"Think about it."

I have. I do.

And I repeat, as Professor Scott and I see it, the purpose of going to such a "great deal of trouble" was to convince not the public, but rather the relevant investigative and political entities that Castro did it, and that a public so convinced would demand what would amont to nuclear holocaust.

We must continue to disagree honorably on a matter that remains of the utmost interest to us all.

Best,

Charles Drago

Okay.

Tim, I sincerely thank you for your interest in my apparently controversial premise -- one that I have reason to suspect was responsible for Bugliosi's counter-claim that "no reasonable person can disagree" with his conclusions. This thread continues what I believe to be an extremely valuable discussion.

For the record: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

Tim wrote: "Therefore, I believe, people such as Bugliosi and McAdams, who for whatever reason do not want to find a conspiracy, will ignore evidence supporting a low back wound."

Willful ignorance of evidence in a criminal investigation ... Seems to me that such behavior is associated with accessories after the fact: individuals who are therefore complicit, in this instance, in the murder of the president of the United States. And no, I'm not claiming that Bugliosi and McAdams and the rest are literally guilty under the law. More's the pity. But you must take my meaning.

Tim asked, "Is it not intellectual arrogance to assert that no rational person can disagree with your position on the conspiracy question?"

Nope.

The simply posed "how" question regarding the death of JFK has been simply, powerfully, irrefutably, and repeatedly answered. Reasonable access to the easy-to-understand supporting evidence -- to the proof of the plot -- can lead a rational mind to no conclusion other than conspiracy.

A further point of clarification: I do not have a "position" on the "how" question, and neither should you. "Position" implies the existence of an equally valid counter-position or argument. And such is not the case in the Kennedy killing.

Tim wrote, "It is a heck of a lot easier to demonstrate that rational minds differ on the question whether there was a conspiracy than it is to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy." (emphasis in original)

Nope.

You could not be more wrong. The existence of a conspiracy has been demonstrated with eloquent simplicity. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical fact. There is ZERO valid evidence supporting the LN lie. If a once-rational mind has been poisoned by nationalism and its supporting propaganda to the extent that the imprimatur of the state alone is sufficient to prompt embrace of the LN illusion, then we must conclude that rationality has been driven from that temple.

Jack, I thank you for your kind words and, as always, for your eternal commitments to truth and justice.

You wrote, "This is not a MATTER OF OPINION. Dr. Mantik demonstrates scientifically that the xrays were forgeries...NOT a matter of opinion. Dr. Costella demonstrates scientifically that the Zfilm is altered...NOT a matter of opinion."

Let me differ with you slightly but significantly. Dr. Mantik's scientific demonstration that JFK's PM x-rays were forged proves cover-up only. However, his scientific demonstrations of what was obfuscated by and added to those forgeries, in tandem with his cliinical destruction of the SBT, prove multiple gunmen shot at and hit the president.

Likewise, proof of alteration of the Z-film in and of itself would not necessarily prove the multiple gunmen argument, but by definition would prove cover-up.

Finally, back to Tim, who wrote, "In order to disagree with my premise, I think one would have to assert that any intelligent and rational person who argues that there was no conspiracy does not really BELIEVE what he or she is saying (that is, he or she is lying and does not really hold the opinions he or she is asserting) and that the opinions being set forth are done so to protect the conspirators (for whatever reason)."

Yup. But with a caveat.

Please reread my original statement: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

I crafted this sentence as carefully as possible. Please do not isolate its elements.

It is difficult to believe that Vincent Bugliosi's access to the JFK evidence has been and remains anything but reasonable.

VB claims to conclude that LHO committed the crime alone, which is to say absent co-conspirators.

VB's Goebbels-esque television performances and vitriolic literary excesses to the contrary notwithstanding, he cannot be said to demonstrate behaviors that persuasively indicate cognitive impairment.

Therefore, if one may be allowed to stretch the definition of "complicity" in the crime of JFK's murder to include, alas, a literally non-criminal effort to protect the conspiracy by denying its very existence, then VB may be said to be complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is historical fact.

Charles Drago

Well done, Cliff.

We're making the same point: alternatives to the Cuban hub had been actualized.

Times change, and the most successful businessmen anticipate change and act accordingly. You can't go home again.

You wrote, "The US Mob sought to develop their own sources of supply, and eventually succeeded in eliminating the Corsicans in the early 70's." So true.

Cuba had outlived its usefulness. A new paradigm was in place.

I'll add that a view of the communist Cuban government as a monolithic entity in lock-step to a single leader/philosophy likely is incorrect. So perhaps a longer view on the part of the Mob and its partners saw greater value in the preservation of Castro than in his demise.

Let's keep this exchange alive.

Charles

I must argue that, with the long-desired invasion of Cuba in the balance, the two-wallet problem could have been dealt with easily: such a tiny artifact, such a huge memory hole.

Oswald disappears from the stage two days later. Physical evidence is tightly controlled. Inconvenient observations can be ... blurred.

If the patsying of Castro were intended to provoke an invasion, rather than to recruit into the coverup otherwise non-conspiratorial accessories after the fact, the Marines would have hit the beach.

Otherwise, Mr. Charles-Dunne, I find your argument to be quite in line with my own thinking. I too have championed the idea of reverse-engineering the plot to discover the identities of its designers.

To venture a tad too far out on a limb: The brief captivity of LHO may have helped to provide a plausible argument for reneging on invasion promises. If so, then was the suspect's momentary survival part of the op?

Indeed, all this is worthy of additional consideration.

Charles

"[The letter] specifically names Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and George H. W. Bush as co-conspirators, among others."

Which is why the letter was published: to support the claim by Bugliosi and others that "conspiracy buffs" know no limits when it comes to fantasizing about what really happened to JFK.

I'm afraid that this will amount to a significant net loss for the truth.

Charles

Myra,

Thanks for starting a new thread on this very important subject.

I'll take the liberty of posting here our ongoing exchange as it appears on the "Could This Be David Morales" thread. Your comments are in red.

_______________________________________________________

A slightly nuanced take on multiple guns in DP, in the guise of an informed but by no means provable hypothesis -- at least right now.

The "Castro did it" gambit was not affected in the slightest by LHO's capture. Its sole purpose was to hinder investigation by promulgating the fear, as expressed by Earl Warren and others, that getting to the bottom of the hit inevitably would lead to nuclear holocaust.

Don't forget the function of the Kostikov incident. Soviet as well as Cuban involvement in the assassination was "documented" early on for anyone too eager to get to the bottom of things. Or to the top, if you prefer.

(Castro was then, and is now, an indispensable enemy. Like bin Laden. If eliminated, their value to the war machine is nil. No control, no excess, without threat.)

Under no circumstances could evidence of multiple gunmen be hidden from honest investigators -- hence the presentation of Oswald acting alone becomes the essential, viable fallback position. Recall the scene in JFK when one of Garrison's investigators is approached by an FBI agent and told that of course we know it was a conspiracy.

What then of the anti-Castro boys? How would they be controlled when it became obvious that a retaliatory invasion of Cuba would not take place?

Bribery, blackmail, and mortal threat.

There was one, and only one, target on November 22, 1963.

Thank you Charles.

This is an area that confuses me horribly; it's exactly what I wanted to discuss.

In 'Deep Politics' Peter Dale Scott spends a lot of time talking about the cover story (Oswald/LN dunnit) versus the justification for the cover story (commies dunnit it/we could all die in a mushroom cloud). He doesn't use my terminology; frankly I think he uses confusing terminology so I'm paraphrasing. I hope I'm accurately reflecting his premise; I don't have the book in front of me.

So, Charles, it sounds to me like you're describing the same premise Scott described. The Castro/commie dunnit back story told to those not in on the plot, to justify the Oswald cover story. Am I accurately paraphrasing your premise?

If so, are you saying that (in your opinion of course) an invasion of Cuba in "retaliation" for JFK's assassination was not part of the original plot? It's just what the Cubans were told would happen to get them to go along and do the wet work(?)

So glad you brought this up...

With my "only an hypothesis" caveat restated up front:

Yes.

I'm not sure how I further can clarify the foundation of my thinking other than restating:

1. Castro's value to the assassination's prime movers and their surrogates -- or, if you will, to the Great Game -- is ZERO if he's gone.

2. Not even a botched LHO murder would have been enough to nullify a full-fledged plan to invade Cuba after a Castro patsying.

To me, no other explanation makes sense.

And yes, it is fair to note that I'm in agreement with Professor Scott on this issue.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks Charles. This is helping a lot.

I'm inclined to agree with this hypothesis, albeit with reservations and questions.

For one: I would think that the mob, Roselli for example, would have been deceived along with the Cubans into believing that

they'd get their capitalist Cuba back after helping the gov't kill the President. Either that or they simply hated JFK enough to help kill him regardless. But the mob's eagerness to reclaim their Cuban businesses seems like an issue with this scenario.

Also (I asked this on another thread and it's still hanging out there), do you feel that there was a time when the CIA genuinely wanted to topple Castro?

If so then when did they change their policy from wanting to nail Castro to wanting him preserved as the boogeyman close to home?

Do you have opinions on these issues/questions?

The "only an hypothesis" caveat is still in effect.

Just brainstorming here...

On edit:

And if this hypothesis is true then it seems like the plotters had the cover story ready from the start. But there is the school of thought that the cover story evolved separately from the murder plot, and that contradicts this. I'm not expressing this very well...

Myra,

The Mob's Cuban businesses (gambling, prostitution, infrastructure control, etc.) in the agregate were small potatoes compared to the international drug trade that was threatened by JFK's telegraphed intentions to withdraw from Southeast Asia and thus likely eliminate the Golden Triangle from the game board. Recall that in the time period under scrutiny Trafficante and others were working to eliminate the Corsican middle men and deal directly with Asian principals (see The Great Heroin Coup as a worthy primer).

Such a paradigm shift would bring about major changes at all levels of the drug operation.

Castro's value, then, as a diversionary bogeyman is enhanced. And we cannot dismiss the possibility that powerful elements within the Cuban government may have been complicit in the development and/or protection of Caribbean smuggling routes that would play immensely significant roles in the new system.

Your question about the intentions of the CIA raises a very important issue. We appreciate KUBARK as a monolithic entity and as a policy setter at our peril. The most influential criminal factions within the agency were/are never more than highly paid tools of the institutions (catch me in the right mood and I'll use the word "families") that had most to gain by maintenance of the Cold War and its multiple profit-generating, power-preserving aspects.

Helms, Angleton, King, Shackley, Meyer, Dulles ... Do you think they would break wind without first clearing it with their bosses?

Were aspects of the post-hit plot improvised in response to unforseen circumstances? I'd be shocked if they weren't. Maybe this metaphor works:

The basso continuo, or figured bass, is a key element in Baroque music, much of which was written with a melody line and with simple bass line figures under it.

The keyboardist would have to play that line and improvise harmony based on the figures.

I'm ham-handedly trying to indicate that an assassination plot of immense complexity by definition would anticipate and provide for the addressing of the unanticipated.

The plotters went for Baroque, and scored.

Hypothetically, of course.

Charles

Insofar as Bugliosi's previous pro-conspiracy stance can be spun to enhance his current LN position (this guy calls 'em as he sees 'em; if we tear him down now, by definition we tear down his earlier work; etc.), we must allow for the possibility that the Bug, like fellow former conspiracy advocates Moldea and Russo, were controlled from the start.

Sleepers.

Can we name anyone who come to our attention as a LN xxxx only to see the light?

Charles

I'm inclined to agree with this hypothesis, albeit with reservations and questions.

For one: I would think that the mob, Roselli for example, would have been deceived along with the Cubans into believing that

they'd get their capitalist Cuba back after helping the gov't kill the President. Either that or they simply hated JFK enough to help kill him regardless. But the mob's eagerness to reclaim their Cuban businesses seems like an issue with this scenario.

Also (I asked this on another thread and it's still hanging out there), do you feel that there was a time when the CIA genuinely wanted to topple Castro?

If so then when did they change their policy from wanting to nail Castro to wanting him preserved as the boogeyman close to home?

Do you have opinions on these issues/questions?

The "only an hypothesis" caveat is still in effect.

Just brainstorming here...

On edit:

And if this hypothesis is true then it seems like the plotters had the cover story ready from the start. But there is the school of thought that the cover story evolved separately from the murder plot, and that contradicts this. I'm not expressing this very well...

Myra,

The Mob's Cuban businesses (gambling, prostitution, infrastructure control, etc.) in the agregate were small potatoes compared to the international drug trade that was threatened by JFK's telegraphed intentions to withdraw from Southeast Asia and thus likely eliminate the Golden Triangle from the game board. Recall that in the time period under scrutiny Trafficante and others were working to eliminate the Corsican middle men and deal directly with Asian principals (see The Great Heroin Coup as a worthy primer).

Such a paradigm shift would bring about major changes at all levels of the drug operation.

Castro's value, then, as a diversionary bogeyman is enhanced. And we cannot dismiss the possibility that powerful elements within the Cuban government may have been complicit in the development and/or protection of Caribbean smuggling routes that would play immensely significant roles in the new system.

Your question about the intentions of the CIA raises a very important issue. We appreciate KUBARK as a monolithic entity and as a policy setter at our peril. The most influential criminal factions within the agency were/are never more than highly paid tools of the institutions (catch me in the right mood and I'll use the word "families") that had most to gain by maintenance of the Cold War and its multiple profit-generating, power-preserving aspects.

Helms, Angleton, King, Shackley, Meyer, Dulles ... Do you think they would break wind without first clearing it with their bosses?

Were aspects of the post-hit plot improvised in response to unforseen circumstances? I'd be shocked if they weren't. Maybe this metaphor works:

The basso continuo, or figured bass, is a key element in Baroque music, much of which was written with a melody line and with simple bass line figures under it.

The keyboardist would have to play that line and improvise harmony based on the figures.

I'm ham-handedly trying to indicate that an assassination plot of immense complexity by definition would anticipate and provide for the addressing of the unanticipated.

The plotters went for Baroque, and scored.

Hypothetically, of course.

Charles

Myra,

With my "only an hypothesis" caveat restated up front:

Yes.

I'm not sure how I further can clarify the foundation of my thinking other than restating:

1. Castro's value to the assassination's prime movers and their surrogates -- or, if you will, to the Great Game -- is ZERO if he's gone.

2. Not even a botched LHO murder would have been enough to nullify a full-fledged plan to invade Cuba after a Castro patsying.

To me, no other explanation makes sense.

And yes, it is fair to note that I'm in agreement with Professor Scott on this issue.

Please let me know what you think.

Charles