Larry Hancock

Thanks Brian, appreciated and anything further you find would be great. I've spend a lot of time trying to fill in exactly what Hunt was doing in 62 and 63 and have my own ideas but actual data is slim. About all I can say is that Hunt was almost always a political action type and not operational in the sense of the field or paramilitary side of the agency....even in Guatemala. His early performance in MC is a good example of how he routinely alienated folks other than the ones he personally liked and things didn't get a whole lot better later on....on the other hand the man talked a heck of a game and played the novel type spy role to a T.

It seems to me that this thread has gotten badly off track - given that it is a very serious thread involving someone who has presented himself and been presented as a conspiracy witness I really think it needs to refocus and I also think Paul has an obligation to at least acknowledge the issue revealed by the first post on the thread.

Brian, could you give some more detail on when and where they worked together - not suggesting they didn't but just interested in the details I understand the references to the book work but I'd like to know more about what Hunt was doing as of the end of 1961 and where it brought him into conduct with Lansdale during 1962....just curiosity.

That raises and interesting question Ron.....Hunt had been part of the Bay of Pigs project but resigned most of his major duties there and left the Cuban project after the landings failed as I recall. He was not involved in the Mongoose era activities and ostensibly was detached to do things like help Dulles with his book...he had been a royal pain in regard to taking sides with the exile groups. I'm curious as to whether Lansdale had spent time around Hunt or would have recognized him at all. He would have recognized HQ types and senior JMWAVE officers due to his role in Mongoose but otherwise I'm not sure. You might check his Church committee interview to get a more specific look at who he interacted with but I'm not sure Hunt was on that list.

Mark, that question was explored by a lot of people in regard to the Elrod encounter story and as I recall those efforts confirmed that Oswald was most certainly not being held in the general pick up cell area with all the routine arrests and custody prisoners. Which certainly makes sense, why one anyone put a cop killer and potential presidential assassin in with a batch of other people in an open row of holding cells and just close the door ....? Does that make any sense at all. I would want to check this out with Gary Mack for sure and there are others who would be certain as well but as I say, the work all of us did in checking out the claim that Elrod (who was one of those run of the mill arrests) was in a batch of cells along with Oswald certainly disproved that claim. -- Larry

Ron, you would be amazed at the amount of trivial receipts and paperwork you would find in my possession after a 35 year business career.....grin. In response to Paul's comments, although I normally try to avoid speculation other than in conference hotel bars, I'll let myself go a bit and offer up the following which would be at least consistent with known facts. Beginning with Chicago and that trip cancellation, the President would very likely asked questions and been told of possible threats....by the time of the Miami trip he would have been further advised there were security issues with groups of Cuban exiles - hard to avoid given the extreme preparations for Miami. We also have at least on exile close to RFK who has stated he shared info on such threats with RFK and its likely that RFK was very much aware of the hostility in certain exile circles. The problem would be that JFK had little ability to respond to that other than rely on the Secret Service. On the other hand, RFK was close to certain exiles and although he was generally resented and had poor relationships with JMWAVE leadership, he had worked with Lansdale very closely for over a year. You can see how closely by reading Lansdale's Church committee interview. The second problem would be that Lansdale himself had few operational level contacts with the exiles and the JMWAVE leadership from Shackley to Morales had viewed his Mongoose program with skepticism if not outright hostility. Still, if RFK was worried he might well have turned to Lansdale and asked him to be on the lookout for any threat rumor and gossip, and if Lansdale had been in the Dallas area he might have been in the Plaza doing just that...fruitlessly. We know that RFK's first thought was that the shooting was related to the exiles, his phone call that afternoon demonstrates that....so his having asked Lansdale for help is speculative but not impossible or inconsistent. Personally I doubt that photo is of Lansdale but if definitive proof were to show up that it was he, I would lean towards the preceding for an explanation.

Paul, not to be a pest, but you mention working with somebody for years. I've posted sources on this thread which should allow anyone to determine how long and how closely Prouty worked with Lansdale. I don't think it adds up "years" of constant contact....have you taken a close look at how long they really were together, where their duties overlapped and how much personal contact they would have had? I don't think it was as much as you may assume. The men did work inside the same group for a time and certainly knew each other, but the question is were they close as office mates over years or really as close as the family members you describe?

We really do need to hear from Paul on this; the remarks posted in the review either either undermine what Paul has been posting or, as an alternative, reflect on Harry as a source....of course its not the first time we have seen books dealing with purported witnesses being repudiated but its something that does raise crediblity issues.

I really think we need Paul's comment on this; certainly Harry's comments have a bearing on a number of threads that have involved him.

Ron, my suggestions were strictly along the line of evaluating the context of the Prouty's remarks about Lansdale, as you note there was nothing specific in his ARRB dialog about his identification.....however since he himself offered his remarks to the ARRB and it was all about JFK, it seems strange that he did not bring up Lansdale if he felt the identification was solid. It would have been extremely relevant and extremely substantive in respect to the other things being discussed. In addition, I suggested a study of SACSA would be relevant to how long and how closely the men worked together and where their jobs crossed - or didn't. I think that is as relevant as understanding the fairly close and positive personal relationship between he and JFK. JFK was actually about the only guy in Lansdale's court at that point in time, had tried to move him into a very senior position in Vietnam and been opposed by both CIA and State. It's my view that a lot of conspiracy speculation gets tossed about without a solid study of the context and background of what's being discussed - in my view broad speculation that Lansdale would be an enemy of JFK just because he had been detached to the CIA or because he was military or even because his Mongoose assignment was over is pretty uniformed. In regard to the latter, he had even been fired from Mongoose, the whole project had been shut down following the promises made and the general reset of all things Cuban after the missile crisis.

I hate to be repetitive but I'm curious to see if anyone posting on this has read the Prouty's ARRB interview and related ARRB memos as I suggested earlier. Or actually studied SACSA, where Prouty and Lansdale worked and developed the timeline for how long the two men actually worked together, what their respective roles were, what their duties were and essentially established a context this discussion? Or overlaid Lansdale's career during this period with Prouty's remarks from a chronological standpoint? In other words, since its an education forum I was just wondering if anyone had done some homework they would be willing to share....

Bowers notified the police that he had stopped a train moving past his tower and out of the yards over the overpass. The way I read the report is that the engine was pointing away from the yard/TSBD and the train had been coming from down town when he spotted a tramp in a hopper car and stopped the train. The report is part of the police radio calls for that afternoon. So...the train was coming from beyond the TSBD and headed away from it when he stopped it.

What is known is that the train that was stopped had not been parked on the TSBD yards but had actually been stopped a good distance from there when Bowers put a hold on train traffic for the motorcade. The train only began to move after he released traffic and it was headed out over the overpass ...so if the tramps had gotten on there in Dallas it was not from in the immediate vicinity of the plaza...and they would have to be pretty stupid to board a train going back through the plaza when they were well away and facing the likelihood that it would be stopped sand searched going that direction.

Kathy, what I was interested in as far as sources would be what individuals are on record as seeing those details in the film...specifically by name. I've tried to keep up with comments about it but what you posted was so detailed and on many points so much more specific than what I have seen previously that I would like to know exactly who saw and reported that....thanks, Larry

Kathleen presented considerably more detail than I ever heard from Jack White or that I can recall from Greg or Pamela. Its also more detail than I heard from William Reymond when he described seeing a second film. Since both Greg and Pamela post here perhaps they can comment on that level of detail. If not I would also like to know the source.....no offense, but if you offer that much detail as factual information you really need to at least cite a source.

Tommy, according to Martino the exiles presented themselves as Castro agents. Its my impression that Oswald was interested in establishing and maintaining contact with Cubans of all stripes, pro and anti Castro agents. I also think Nagell had not idea of the role in which Oswald was operating...how much of that was self directed and how much was instigated by the FBI is certainly unclear but I think both factors were in play. Nagell remembered Oswald from Japan as someone outside the normal institutional box, very open to both the pros and cons of the American system - as was Nagell himself. Based on that I don't think the realized that Oswald's Russian experience had turned him around a bit......and why he would continue hanging with anti-Castro exiles when Nagell told him who they really were. So yes, I think that is the explanation and things were moving to fast for Nagell to figure it out. He was thinking of Oswald in the context of an earlier paradigm and as a less complex individual than he had become.

Tommy, I suggest you contact Jeff Morley......I know he and Talbot specifically followed up on the Morales ID, interviewed his family members. etc. He would be a good place to start in determining what they did find out about Morales whereabouts at the time.

In his case it was probably known as being a scope dope.....my guess is that he had picked up some basic electronics and radio from the CAP experience and may even some terminology from reading SF....that could place you well on the career aptitude test....actually it worked for me when I went in the Air Force, I just ended up in comm rather than radar.

Bingo, that rings a bell Scott, I wish I could point Tommy to the additional research but I'm afraid it escapes me...

Tommy, all I can tell you is that the story goes even further than that....the individuals identified as CIA agents were actually contacted, they stated that it was them in the picture, as I recall they had been at a company event in the hotel and wondered over to the ballroom but that's just my recollection. However, far be it from me to try to take away an identification that someone wants to make - I think I've made my position clear on the risk of photo ID so I'll just let it lie. I did want you to know that a lot of follow on work had gone on, some of it in the article I linked and more later. You can probably find it with some searching but I'll just leave it at that.

Thomas, are you aware that the purported CIA characters included in Shane's video have been positively identified as other people, those ID's have been corroborated by the individuals themselves and Shane has agreed that his original ID's of them were incorrect? That took a couple of years to come about but the video like many other things remains a part of internet history. You can find the investigation by Morley and Talbot as well as the resolution below, I have exchanged emails with Shane on it but I don't know if he ever issued a public retraction or not? https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_The_BBCs_Flawed_RFK_Story

On the contrary Paul, I'm always at the risk of remembering something incorrectly and very aware of it. But my point is that citing another book or a video is not what I'm seeking. What is the primary source that verifies that Hoover had specifically tagged Oswald as a lone nut shooter unassociated with anyone else at that early place and time....primary means a document, telephone call, oral history etc. Of course if that were true, then he certainly began going off target and introducing remarks and references to a possible conspiracy later that day and over the weekend.

Thanks Brian, much appreciated. And for Paul, that is a pretty amazing position to take since as I recall you were unable to provide an actual citation or source for Wrone's view on the matter. If you can give us a citation that's fine but if you are saying that Dr. Wrone simply had an author epiphany and that outweighs an actual series of primary sources then...well hey, I can have an author counter-epiphany as well. Although I have to admit the level of specificity in "from his office overlooking the banks of the Potomic" is pretty darn convincing....

Cliff, could you put in a link to that Hoover senior staff memo....I've referred to it several times but when I need it I can never find it quickly. I'm afraid I've pointed out to Paul that there are a number of incidents which prove that Hoover was very open to pursuing a conspiracy - as long as it could tie Oswald to Cuba or to commies in general. On Saturday morning he was telling Johnson about an impersonation in Mexico City, obviously suggesting that if Oswald was being impersonated there a broader conspiracy could be in play. Viewing Hoover as the sole instigator of the Lone Nut concept is just not accurate....he was being pressured in that direction by Johnson if anything. It is true that he was quickly focused on Oswald as the shooter but not necessarily on Oswald as an isolated, lone nut. That was coming from elsewhere. And certainly Hoover was not driving the commentary coming from the Situation Room to Air Force One.

Brian, that is indeed an excellent synopsis. It seems to me that numerous folks have a very narrow view of Lansdale and if you really dig into his philosophy and world view you find something much different. I suspect that if Lansdale had become point man across Latin America the story there might have been less tragic - instead, rather than Lansdale it was ultimately David Morales who took point for the Joint Chiefs in South America and Morales's views and Phoenix experience served as precursors for the brutal Condor counter insurgencies.