David Andrews

[Dennis] David told me that he asked someone “why all this rigmarole?” and was told the answer: “security,” in case someone might attempt to ”hijack the body.” Interesting point: Who could organize an attempt to "hijack" the president's body other than a governmental authority or law enforcement agency not in on the cover-up, and hoping to secure a different autopsy and independent conclusions? In other words, looking for what was denied at Parkland Hospital.

In the railroad barons' wars of the 19th century, E. H. Harriman was John D. Rockefeller's stooge and whipping boy (beleaguered through Rockefeller's alliance with J. P. Morgan's railroad interests). The family relationship may have endured.

Why does Oswald's killing have to be seen as desperate CYA? I would say it was planned all along. There were several opportunities that failed: Marrion Baker encounter; two cops searching McWatters' bus; the Texas Theater. When Oswald's murder by cops failed, Ruby had to be sent in to make sure the patsy would not contradict his framing, which was always to be confirmed by his quick death.

Paul - I haven't decided. His false defector became the Patsy. He owed his position to cooperation with Dulles (down to the famous contract not to polygraph Dulles and selected associates). He was a rabid enough enemy of communism to fall in with the thinking that JFK, as an opponent of US imperialism, was a de facto communist sympathizer. I feel less certain of his enmity toward JFK, though, than that of Dulles, Helms and Phillips. (Maybe I shouldn't let his air of pseudo-intellectual aloofness influence me.) A lot of the decision may hinge on a closer reading of the post-assassination Mexico City molehunt, and how Angleton's interests and mission there tie in with those of Phillips. Would Angleton have been opposed to Kennedy's assassination by CIA elements? Hardly. Did he have genuine reasons to suspect the Soviets of the assassination? Doubtful. Does he strike one as a respecter of the Executive Office and any of the occupants he "served" under? To paraphrase the famous remark on Dulles, I think Angleton was innocent of such matters. His chief preoccupations were anti-communism, intelligence intrigue, and preserving the integrity of the Agency - the definition of integrity here not to be confused with that of ethics. Where does all this put him in the cabal? One last observation: I think Angleton imagined himself a pragmatist about CIA and intelligence affairs.* Striking John was a pragmatic decision, by some lights. -------- *Sidebar: Angleton, I think, considered his self-presumed intuitiveness a tool to base his pragmatism on - and it failed him in the cases of Philby, Golitsyn and Nosenko.

But no...this disparaging old woman is as hard and mean and hateful in her last years as the poison apple one in Snow White. She and Harvey were alcoholics, and one night at a dinner party her mouth - and I think some violent act - cost Harvey some career points.

Look into all the Memphis and Tennessee connections to setting up and covering up the MLK assassination. That'll make for one scary weekend.

I've seen this documentary, and the participation of Kostikov and the other two KGB is a mystery to me. At the time, I suspected it was part of the "We know nothing" wave inspired by Norman Mailer's trip to Russia to research his book with Larry Schiller.

Elvis was the Edwin Walker of the whole business. Nixon made him an honorary BNDD agent as a reward for opening the Golden Triangle heroin trade by removing the main impediment to a SE Asia war.

Do we have evidence of Oswald in Mexico City prior to September 1963? I seem to recall that Richard Case Nagell told Dick Russell this was the case, and that Nagell rendezvoused with Oswald there. I'm sorry that I don't remember the exact dates and references in the Russell book at this moment, but perhaps another member does. In general, it's time for a double-check on Nagell's assertions about Oswald, who is as great a mystery in Russell's book as in other sources, Dick Russell, would you correspond with me privately about Oswald? I have a project in mind.

If you read The Secret Team, Prouty's main theme is that CIA has had its people in the military for decades, and the military has cooperated and given them ranks and postings appropriate to their operational purposes. Among other affairs, it's how Air America came off in the Vietnam War and how Ed Lansdale rose to Air Force general. I should have said this above.

Sandy, Ashamed to have seen that so many people in (to clarify) his operations wing of the Pentagon knew there had been a coup, and either approved of it or were ready to run with it. When you hear Prouty answer the question, he sounds really sorry to admit that "they all knew." Look at Len Osanic's archived show descriptions on the Black Op Radio site and you might find this interview under the Prouty recordings.

Re: JCS v. CIA - I wonder about the full meaning of Fletcher Prouty's remark to interviewer Len Osanic, which I have to paraphrase: Prouty said that when he returned from his South Pole trip after the assassination, he found there was a new sense of mission and "Go" at the Pentagon, and he could tell that people knew that a coup had taken place. He went on to another topic, but Osanic interrupted him to ask, "How many of the military at the Pentagon would you say knew there had been a coup?" Prouty tried to blow it off, but Osanic insisted. Finally, Prouty said, in a tone of disappointment and embarrassment, "They all knew, Len." Osanic likes to tell this story on his BlackOp Radio show, and once by accident I heard this exchange in his Prouty interview tapes (I couldn't tell you where to find it), There's no place else in Prouty's recordings where that kind of emotion breaks through. I think it surprised Prouty. I think he was ashamed of what he saw that day. So what did it mean? You have to remember Prouty's concept of a "secret team" at CIA infiltrating the military and the other intel services, plus corporations and the media. Prouty is not the be-all and end-all in this type research, but I don't think he was a disinfo artist, and his perspective is valuable.

Tommy, I'm arguing against Trejo's point. I never expected anyone guilty to be whacked, fired, or prosecuted for the assassination. In comparison, there was a much greater and more aggressive search for conspiracy when Lincoln bought it at the end of a hot war. And not everybody revered him while he was alive, either.

Yet no one was punished in private. Nobody extinguished Morales, Giancana, Roselli, or anybody complicit or having guilty knowledge until the mid-1970s, when they might have talked before HSCA or other threatened committees. Dick Helms went to the top of the Company. Phillips "retired" and didn't starve. Angleton only fell because the molehunt put too many crimps in the organization. Hunt went on to become a pawn in the Company's war on Nixon, and if his wife got it over that, it probably wasn't Company. To paraphrase: Nobody hollered treason and the treasonous prospered. Look low: Ferry, Del Valle, and others (Shaw?) bought it over Garrison. Look high: Harriman, Lodge, Bundy, Michael Forrestal - nobody working for the White House went down at all. And why didn't anyone at CIA, or at any other intel agency, or anyone in political life, punish the far right for having the temerity to take out a sitting president, even one they all were glad to be rid of? It's because the far right was only one set of players allowed to operate in the assassination climate, just as there were multiple factions fostered for the attempt to get Castro. The grassroots American "far right" - even down to the small-town stupids who elected Trump and stand by him through every error - has always been disposable, easily made culpable, and eventually forgettable. The same DPD that lionized Edwin Walker in 1963 wouldn't let him skate on morals charges in 1977.

She knew the Zodiac killer (he was one of the three Dealey shooters) and, later in life, the Pig Farm killers up in Canada. She got around. And somehow didn't get killed. She put up a website at around the time of the original posts, if I recall right.

Some good points, everybody. Thanks. More later. Paul - I look at the word rogue as equivalent to the word unauthorized and concomitant to the concept punishable. And didn't nobody get punished for Dealey. Only for being in position to talk about it. Was the "rogue op" sanctioned afterward, since Jack couldn't be brought back? Or did it always exist above the possibility of sanction. That is, upon the level of the paradiso named Denial. ("I'm not privy to who struck John," pointedly dispensed at a certain career-closing backyard news conference in Arlington.) "Rogue" by this definition equals "Carried out at the highest levels of Company operations."

Andrej, and others of the "rogue elements" mind -- When the very influential former director of CIA, coupled with serving department heads as lofty as Helms and Phillips, conspire to remove a president and leave a trail to a lone patsy, is this a "rogue" op or a compartmentalized policy-changing op run from cooperating offices? If the latter, then it's CIA. Say there was a law firm with a case that covered several separate areas of legal expertise. If this were something that was best settled through litigation, a team derived from the appropriate departments would handle the several court actions. But if it were something that could be finessed into a quiet resolution, the partners might act cooperatively and privately to bring this about without litigation, giving only selective knowledge to needed members of the lower echelons. In either case - the firm disposed of the matter. Dulles, need we recall, was a lawyer for the Rockefeller-centered establishment that worked diplomatically through Harriman and Lodge to destabilize South Vietnam and bring on the war. But running a select group at the top of an organization to effect policy changes doesn't take an attorney, It happens in business all the time. And Dulles was a corporate attorney, still in control of an agency that, in period organization-think, was called The Company.

Schieffer says Trumps firing of Comey reminds him of JFK assassination times with it's similar crisis of conspiracy suspicion in the minds of millions of regular Americans. No offense, Joe - but Schieffer is calling "Kennedy" because every other journalist and his/her grandmother has already called "Nixon."

Like I just read in a Robert Morrow post from 2010: CIA director William Colby to NY Times editor Abe Rosenthal in 1975 "New York Times editor Rosenthal asked CIA Director William Colby if the CIA ever killed anybody in this country. Colby replied, “Not in this country.” When asked who the CIA had killed Colby said, “I can’t talk about it.” Colby said, “Sometimes intelligence operations are high-risk, and sometimes they fail. Then, the question is not whether the CIA is some rogue elephant, which it never has been, but rather that we Americans made a mistake through out constitutional system.”" (Underscoring added.) [John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 968]

George, you're just not going to find anything but a consensus against Files here. We went through the Files thing ten years ago, when Dankbaar was an active poster.

1) Money; 2) Notoriety; 3) Not dying in jail or being homeless after; 4) Wim Dankbaar Don't fall for convicts.

James Files ought to get out more, y'know? Would do wonders for his disposition. Not to mention his depositions.

Who is Angirton?

I've forgotten - has Dino Brugioni given an opinion on the Oswald backyard photos? (He's in the Che documentary.)

Both Nosenko and Golitsyn false defectors, sent to bollocks Angleton.