Larry Hancock

Well I will make one more try at this and simply point out that there is a lot more to this story than in the material presented above....including the essential fact that the estimates of the initial pre-invasion air strikes proved to be way too optimistic - not uncommon since they came largely from the Cuban pilots carrying out the strikes and aircrews do the best they can when under fire. It was only the photo reconnaissance of the following days which showed that a considerable portion of Cuban air was still operational (there was even a major push back on that from Brigade Air which did not want to admit its failures on any thing about the invasion). What any of senior leadership including Rusk knew about those sorts of details is questionable, certainly JFK was not briefed by the military commanders on the post strike assessment nor did Bundy or Bissell bring it up to him when they made an abortive attempt to restart the D Day strike. Neither of them apparently wanted to tell him the actual level of risk to the ships nor did they understand there was no way the ammunition ships were going to be unloaded and off the beachhead as JFK had ordered, again they seem to have had little grip on the operational plan (you don't unload tanks and ferry them to the beach over nasty reefs in a couple of hours). And nobody on JFK's staff was in direct communication with the Brigade or even the CIA liaison on he Essex, the Navy command ship. Nobody told JFK his order to have all ships at sea before daylight was impossible nor that the Cuban crews on the supply ships fled far out to sea under fire (the Navy had to chase and then force them to stop) and refused to return to attempt to supply the beachead even the following night. To get the full picture of what was going here you need to read the interviews with the military commanders when they were actually shown documents covering what Bissell was telling JFK vs what he was telling him (documents only available to show them decades after the event). You also need to see Lynch's detailed information on the landing itself and what the Cubans expected what JFK had ordered they be told about American support. And of course the Navy preparations that I mentioned above, for a second task force and for a false flag at Guantanamo are not discussed in any of the documents mentioned above other than some vague references to how damaging the abortive Nino Diaz mission was to the plan...without any detail on what that mission really was... Its a very complex story and it is also necessary to keep in mind that remarks by several of the senior people like King, Rusk etc were woefully ill informed and can't really be taken as the reality of what was going on in the operation in real time.

My answer would be "none" as far as I know.....Cabell was never really operationally involved and I would say most of what I read shows him to be woefully ignorant of what was really going on in the field. We have exceedingly detailed information on the air operations, who gave what commands at what times, etc. Including the fact that the Cuban Brigade leaders were absolutely briefed before sailing on what support they would and would not receive. Its also key to remember that Brigade Air Operations were run though a completely separate line of command from the Brigade landing force and that there were actually no provisions for the Air elements to communicate directly with the landing force, nor for that matter any forward air controllers. Bottom line, the command and control was a disaster from the beginning - which the projects military leaders were fully aware of but could not manage to convince Bissell to fix. If you want to really get into the timing you can find that Cabell and Bissell had ample time to make their last minute pitch to JFK and inform him of the huge risk of the Cuban military aircraft that they then knew to be operational and not only failed to talk to him and be honest about it but willfully let the Brigade begin to go onshore when they actually had time to actually abort the mission. I don't mean it to be a sales pitch but anyone interested in this really should read In Denial, I spent the better part of two years going though just those type of details against the extremely detailed information we have now, not only from the inquiries but sources like Lynch's first hand account of the landings. I'm sort of frustrated more people have not read it and that so much wrong informaition is still ciruculating.....

In regard to the Taylor Commission, I was not precise enough....what I was referring to was the actual transcript of the hearings, not the report per se. The transcript is extremely important in being able to access which principals knew about certain things or their opinions on issues......the historian had access to at least portions of the transcript as he quotes individuals such as J.C. King and others - which reveals what they did and did not know in some areas. For example King knew that JFK had actually approved US Air Force transports to conduct air drops over the landing zone on the second night...a major change in the order of engagement. Yet King did not know the mission was not carried out due to the lack of cargo riggers and air force preparation for any such directive, in fact it appears that he thought it had been carried out until the dialog in the hearings....a pretty sad indication of his involvement considering how critical the air resupply missions were. Such a mission was definitely not not in the original plan and yet one more area where JFK allowed American action in support of the Brigade which is never really discussed in the histories. I'm not sure the full transcript has resurfaced even at this date; I relate how the historian appears to have gained access in the book but I'm not up to citing that sort of detail from memory. On another note, the material we have now clearly shows two things: The Joint Chiefs agreed that the landing could likely succeed but specified that due to logistics problems in the plan, it would be almost impossible to hold the beachhead unless there was a major uprising and revolt against Castro at the time - which the CIA knew was virtually impossible but made no comment on. The second is that the air staff section of their response clearly states that if a single Cuban military aircraft was operational over the beachhead the likelihood of losing one or more supply ships and dooming the landing was almost certain. JFK had directed the landing be totally done and ships back in international waters by daylight but we know from the officers involved that was never communicated to them or part of their plan. We also know that Bissell was very much aware that perhaps half the Cuban air force was till operational and ready to engage the landing and did not brief JFK or advise him of the risk....just one of Bissell's major sins.

It is, so we have the CIA IG's report which was initially suppressed and Bissell's response to that....and we have the CIA historian's full and extensive report. The last section of that was most recently released by but not fully endorsed by the Agency as a historical document given its rather obvious attitude and finger pointing (with a special indictment of the Navy). Then we have the Taylor Commission report, well actually we don't have the full report itself, but the CIA historian had access to it and cites and quotes it repeatedly so we have a great deal of information from it. One of the things that stands out from that was just how totally out of it J C. King, Western Hemisphere chief was largely uniformed about operations even though the operational people (not Bissell and Barnes but the field people) where under his area of responsibility. All in all its a massive and damming set of documents on the entire Cuba Project, especially the first 8 months under Eisenhower that really does not receive much attention compared to the Bay of Pigs.

That was one of the points I was making Jim, that there were a great many things going on that JFK was not briefed about and beyond that was overtly lied to about by Bissell. JFK apparently was not even told about the mainline American Army tanks deployed at the beach head with the Brigade (only one source for those - direct from the US Army), something that would have instantly voided all the deniability he was demanding - and for that matter the deniability Eisenhower had demanded when he ordered the Cuba project in the first place.

Sure Ron, John was not necessarily widely known in the contemporary research community as he truly was what I would call a very independent and deep researcher; we talked him into doing one presentation at a Lancer conference but in general he spent all his free time in actual records work, especially with crime scene and forensics types of materials. He did some amazing work on the JFK case which is still not widely available; John was a perfectionist and wanted to explore every detail and wrap up all loose ends before taking a position on something. However when he did, especially one relating to evidence manipulation or conspiracy, he certainly would arouse the ire of people like Dan Moldea... He was the sort of person who would do hands on work at NARA or in the LAPD files - more importantly he had no fear of consulting actual professionals/experts on a forensics or ballistics subject. His problem was if they gave an opinion on something and then he revealed it had an assassination context, the waffling would begin immediately. He discusses some of those experiences in regard to both ballistics and the autopsy in this book. Among his many artistic skills, John was a master model builder. In regard to his RFK studies he built an exact scale model of the pantry in his basement....down to the measurements of the floor tiles and ceiling tiles as well as everything else. He then scaled in the crime scene photos which allowed him to position the locations of individuals doing measurements in photos, of the trajectories they were plotting - essentially to reverse engineer their work and measurements. That alone revealed the extent to which the crime scene had been examined not objectively or neutrally but rather to support the scenario of Sirhan as the lone shooter. To make that scenario work they had to jump though a number of hoops, and ignore a good number of things that suggested additional shots and a far more complex shooting scenario. John lays all that out and presents the images to go with it - which is why initially his approach (which was ideal for an expository narrative) used several images for each point he was making. A great approach if you have unlimited space....not so much for either a print book or even EBook, hence the editing challenge. The example of the scaled pantry study should give you an idea of his literally obsessive attention to detail - which you will find in the book in the form of his work with the ballistics evidence and in the autopsy materials. Perhaps most importantly, he translates how the court process actually allowed false information to be entered into the record on both, as well as the evidence for perjury of the LAPD ballistics expert witness. Its a bit hard to convey the attention to detail John demonstrated, once he started pulling on a string he just never let go, no matter where it led or how long it was...

I'm guess I'm going to have to say this again, but if someone has not read the section on the Cuba Project in my book In Denial I honestly don't think you have the full details that are now available to us for a better historical picture of how things came down and the extent to which Richard Bissell knowingly lied to both JFK on one side and two his own military commanders on the other. Or the extent to which JFK did change certain rules of engagement literally on the fly during the three days at the beachead to support the Cuban force and then ordered it to be extracted - in a contingency plan which he had ordered in writing but one which the Navy had not prepared for and which had never been briefed to the Cuban Brigade, just as they had never been briefed or equipped to move into guerilla warfare as JFK had also been assured. And to Jim, there is circumstantial evidence discussed in the book that Commander in Chief Atlantic had dispatched a super-carrier strike group off the coast of Cuba, equipped with enough air power to literally destroy the Cuban military - and did so without informing JFK. That force was entirely independent of the Essex Navy support group - which JFK was aware of - and both forces contained Marine landing elements, which had also not been briefed to the president. The Essex also carried a ground attack air group with specialized ordinance, again not briefed to the president and way outside of the purported support role of that ship. Even more interesting is the circumstantial evidence that a false flag attack on Guantanamo was in play by Navy Intelligence and CIA officers at Guantanamo, an effort that only aborted because the ordinance to be used in the effort literally blew up after it was transported outside the base. If the attack had occurred the pressure from Commander In Chief Atlantic for massive retaliation would have been difficult for JFK to resist. The presence of the second task force, the ordinance smuggled out of Guantanamo and the abortive explosion are matters of record....as we can imagine there is no written record of the sort of false flag mission I just described, although the Nino Diaz abortive mission is another strong suggestion that such a plan was in play.

Mike, no doubt you are right and the price will cost some sales....then again this is not really a book for the casual reader so at least the price telegraphs that....frankly I'd love to see a mainline publisher get interested in it and make an offer to pick up the rights for what could be a general readership version of the work. It would be even better as the source for an investigative documentary, the points John raises would be ideal to treat in a contrarian re-enactment of the crime scene and forensics work - as it should have been done rather than literally forcing results that supported the prosecution of Sirhan.

MIke, John passed away something like four years ago.....and the price is set based on the size of the book and the amount of work that went into it. Lancer is well aware that it will sell relatively few copies but has been working on actually getting it into publication since John's death, an effort that involved Stu Wexler recovering the draft from John's laptop, Stu and I working on configuring a book that John envisioned as well over one thousand pages into something that would even be feasible as an EBook, then Gary Murr spending months editing it, and finally Gabriella doing heroic labor to format and publish it. I say all that just to convey that the book is a labor of respect in regard to John's commitment and work, certainly not a commercial effort per se. I will mention Kobo and Smashwords to the Lancer folks, both are totally new to me...thanks for the tip.

JFK Lancer has just published an EBook of John Hunt's seminal research on the murder of Robert Kennedy. Buried in Plain Site is a study of the failures and obstruction related to the LAPD crime scene work, the autopsy and the forensics and autopsy related trial testimony unlike anything you will have ever seen. The book is in EBook form, some 548 pages, due to its size and the number of images and photographs. There is literally nothing like it; the book is not about conspiracy per se but it is most definitely proves a willful obstruction of justice including the destruction and manipulation of key evidence. If you have not been at this long enough to know John's work, I can only assure you that it represents some of the most methodical and painstaking effort you will come across - and is totally rooted in primary crime scene evidence. You can find it on Amazon now at: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BR5WWY3Y/ref=sr_1_10?crid=1UH51BZYCJXE&keywords=john+hunt+robert+kennedy&qid=1672158062&sprefix=john+hunt+robert+kennedy%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-10 PS: the title relates to the fact that the evidence of conspiracy has always been apparent at the site of the shooting itself. its just that LAPD managed to bury it by forcing the scenario of a single shooter on the site of the crime; traces of that burial were apparent early on but it was left to John's dedicated work to fully reveal when and how obstruction of justice was carried out.

Tom, I wish I could answer your detailed questions but we would need an experienced FBI officer of the period to do that, at one time the forum had such a resource and he was extremely familiar with FBI document practices. I'm afraid he is long gone at this point though. We are sadly lacking in first hand knowledge of routine, standard practices of both the FBI and CIA at this point and its really frustrating that we don't have solid resources who could answer questions about what we see on routine correspondence/documents. What I can tell you in general is that it was quite routine for the FBI to be requested to do background checks on any individual being considered for security clearances in the military or other agencies, and as far as the CIA was concerned for special operational assignments/approvals. That background check could be far ranging in terms of geography. I recall the folks at the bank in my home town being impressed when the FBI showed up as part of a background check on me when I was in the military and being evaluated for a security clearance. As to the reason for Emillo being evaluated, David could probably provide more detail but but this was at a period in time when he was coming out of deep covert operations inside Cuba and soon to be posted to extremely key positions in CIA field intelligence and counter intelligence activities. Before being given those sorts of tasks I have no doubt CIA security would want a new background check on him in regard to connections, business and social connections inside the U.S. David has posted a good bit of background on him here and I think the security check is just one more indication of the importance of the role he would come to play in the CIA and by 1963 at SAS/WAVE.

At this point I begin to wonder if he was doing much beyond expressing beliefs or ideas he has heard over the years, possibly even from his father. Larry S is doing an outreach to his producer to try and probe whether or not Carlson really has anything actionable or for that matter is pursuing his remarks himself. Until I see some evidence of that I'm tending to take it more and more as a sound byte, albeit one from someone with a lot of "reach". Carlson certainly likes hot topics and champions them very effectively - note all the time he spent with UFOs this past year or so. Bottom line, unless or until I see some sign that he has a source who has seen a document, talked to a person with information that could be investigated or taken the whole thing seriously enough to pursue it apart from his broadcast I'm going to be much more interested in the leads that are discussed in this thread.

I suspect there is a good bit about the Oswald's in Moore's working files, which might not have gone to HQ central files (a really big problem for us since the HQ files are largely what got collected). However I have no doubt that Moore did report on Oswald and that represents some of what is withheld in CIA files. What would be most interested would be who was being copied on his reports on Oswald. The fact that there are still withheld documents for Moore is pretty revealing since what he was doing was perfectly legal and SOP, the fact that there are no Moore files on Oswald in evidence needs to get more attention than it ever has. As to Emilio, yes, David and I consider him a critical link from Oswald in New Orleans to CIA SAS operations around Oswald, most likely Foreign Intelligence as far as Emilio goes - with a propaganda operation being carried out separately and most likely including Phillips who had been reassigned to SAS. We think this is one of the biggest stories that needs to be developed and as you point out, it reveals why some of our deepest conspiracy suspects would have known all about Oswald and why he would have become an ideal target as a patsy, one not requiring nearly as much work to establish Castro/Cuba linkages since that was already done. Two really big stories here and both very dangerous for CIA headquarters starting the evening of Nov. 22.

Actually Hosty said repeatedly that Marina was really his first interest and was more suspect for potential security listing. The FBI investigative files show that after their return both Lee and Marina were checked out against all the FBI's standard sources within the Communist leaning groups and they found no evidence at all of contacts or links that might lead back to either - which is why neither was placed on the subversive list. Practically speaking though, Marina had no access to information or even groups that would be useful for collections or even agitation. There were formal rules for listing individuals on the index and FBI memos discuss this in regard to both of them. To get elevated treatment Marina or Lee would have needed to became associated with subversive groups or individuals, or show up in reports from subversive sources. Of course Lee did in New Orleans, which got him listed on the security index then. Given the mail intercepts and ongoing monitoring of their movements I don't know that the FBI ignored either of them - as far as the CIA, without Moore's full file on Oswald its impossible to say what the CIA thought during the early months of their return.

There has been a good bit of talk about Whitten not being satisfied and being pulled from his assignment to be replaced by Angleton....but as far as I know that did not include complaints about his own report being edited or managed. It does seem hard to believe that he could have totally missed the areas which are not mentioned or explored in the report - the only thing that really makes sense is that he was directed to focus extremely tightly on it, while thinking he would have a chance to explore the other leads like the FPCC connection in more detail, and then got pulled from the assignment. Others are likely far better prepared to comment on his remarks on the assignment, which I recalls as being being pretty bitter about it...

One of the really interesting things about Whitten's report is that given all his focus on Mexico City, and conversations with personnel there, as well as review of related reports from FBI and elsewhere there is no mention at all of Oswald representing himself as affiliated with the FPCC at the Cuban Embassy and for that matter any sign that Mexico City station personnel were made aware even after the assassination of the full Oswald background in 1963 including any of his activities in New Orleans. It appears that information was still being held separately and the Whitten report presents a very isolated picture of Oswald. Clearly there were many questions he could have raised with Mexi staff like Phillips if he had been aware of the FPCC linkages and of the fact that under SAS Phillips himself had been tasked with propaganda against FPCC.

Thanks Joe, David Boylan and I have been writing and speaking about this exchange and others related to Mrs Luce for some time. As far as I can tell this copy is very close to what we have been working with but David would be the one to compare and know because he was the one who located the documents were were working from....we do consider it a very important exchange for several reasons and detail those in our Red Bird leads papers...

I suspect Bill covers it but I think there was a record of the number originating the call that allowed it to be matched to the Cuban embassy line....the CIA could also have verified that as they also had a very complex tap system at a Central telephone exchange - with multiple recorders on multiple switched lines - and could have recorded a call from the Cuban embassy there, capturing both the origin and destination of the call. If there was no call record identifying the origin of the call, then as you say it could have been from a pay phone or any other phone for that matter - perhaps after the twist party (nope, not going there).

One external tap was directly on the Cuban embassy line - its like putting a bridge tap on a phone line where multiple phone sets can share the same number. Any call recorded off that line would have been for the general Cuban office number with no detail on an extension. That allowed the CIA personnel to record any call made outgoing or incoming to the main office number of the embassy. It would also allow any call from the safehouse side of the tap to appear as if it was from the Cuban embassy itself. At different times there were different types of taps and bugs inside the office itself but those often did not last long - Bill Simpich discusses all this in great detail on his work about the Mexico City station. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

Bill Simpich and I have pointed out that given the way certain of the taps on the Cuban consulate were set up, it was perfectly possible to impersonate a call from the embassy on a tap line at a CIA safe house. That means that anyone with sanctioned (or unsanctioned) access to the safe house could have made the call in question - and most probably did it that given that the Cuban facility itself was closed that day. Now which actors were involved, almost impossible to say but my guess is that it would have had to be facilitated by the AMOTS who did training for the safe house and surveillance personnel and who actually operated independently of Mexico City station in Mexico....tasked strictly by Sforsa out of JMWAVE in Miami.

If you take a careful look at some of the designations in the document (Special Agent in Charge, etc) I think you are seeing the FBI station chief in LA signing off on a background check on Emilio ordered out of FBI HQ in DC pursuant to a standard CIA request at the time Emilio was being cleared for a new set of responsibilities on his return to the US - which included foreign intelligence work against Cubans domestically and in Mexico. Standard practice for agencies to use the FBI investigations group in background checks for clearances. As to why LA, I suspect Jean Paul is right right in that the LA office handled surveillance on the Cuban consulate in LA, as well as some matters related to Mexico including international travel.

Rodger, I'll leave it to Larry S to pursue but for myself....and being an ongoing nudge in such things....unless or until he provides some level of detail about the source (not the identity per se) but did the source see a document, have a personal conversation with someone who did, or with someone who could describe a primary source who would know about such things - in other words give us some reason to believe he is not just repeating gossip, opinion, belief (which we have plenty of already) then I'm not sure it does us much good. That wold be true even if he elaborates on "what type of involvement" - we have pretty much any type of involvement one could imagine on the table already and have had for years. What we don't really need as a source is just one more person hanging out in Washington who belies in their gut that the CIA was somehow "involved" . We've had that for decades now. Regardless of politics or other issues I'll applaud if he brings something to the table (especially if its to Justice, Congress, anyone who could use it in an actual investigation) that really could advance investigation of the CIA as an agency, its personnel or even its surrogates.

Thanks Matthew, yes I encouraged Larry S to do that since he now had some meaningful contacts at the show...we hope. And Larry and others on board with he concept can provide Tucker with concrete advice on exactly how to move forward with agencies and Congress. Beyond simply being the right thing to do it would no doubt expand his image so it seems like it would be a double win for him to move forward with his story.

The think is I see no reason why his supporters should not be pressuring him for action and that includes a good number of those who are going to be in the new Republican led House. He has garnered a good bit of support on this forum for speaking out and I assume everyone praising his action would also chime in to encourage that he treat his own story seriously. If he does not act it raises serious questions about his own credibility.

Well I'll just be repetitive and say this one more time.....assuming that Tucker does have a source and if Tucker is ethical and committed then he should be making Congressional contacts to gain an offer of immunity for his source to go on record with his information. The same with an outreach to Congress to involve appropriate committees including oversight committees. Given that his source may now be at risk, and that he is morally complicit for not revealing this information himself, he should be willing to cooperate and provide directions on where to find the document he saw including details to vet his story as to date, time, location, source etc. There are legal channels which exist to actually introduce and leverage this sensational claim......will they work, maybe, maybe not but sensational evidence demands a meaningful response. Bottom line, he reported it, he has a responsibility legally, ethically and morally to try and do something with it to move matters forward....its a claim which if supportable could well lead to a new Congressional inquiry at a minimum and for that matter his Congressional and political supporters claim to want truth in the matter so they need to step up too. This is no game, the assassination was a murder, it was sedition, it was treason and he needs to treat it in that light.