Larry Hancock

If  you take a look as Mason's photo (which I posted on my web site ages ago) you find that about the only resemblance he has to Lee Oswald is that they would both be Anglos.  Mason has something of a unique facial appearance.  I've always been amazed that Dick Russell wrote that he was a "look alike" for Oswald....and shared that with Dick...grin.

Nevertheless, Mason could have gone to the house. 

It's also important to note that while he was definitely involved in reaching out to his Army business partner (who informed on him) there is more to connect Ruby to the Terrell theft than Mason, at least with Ruby as an intermediary.   As far as Mason goes, the FBI was far more interested in his long time association with sales to the  ultra right including the Minutemen.  

Matt,  what I can say is that beginning in that summer, JMWAVE and in particular Morales, had been tasked with providing certain support for AMWORLD,  but both of them were also engaged in covert maritime operations - using some of the same types of craft. Artime's purchasing effort only began to jell at the end of the year, but in several instances he was clearly given leads and introductions to the types of companies (and lenders / leasing agents) that JMWAVE itself had routinely  used. We do know that by November, "Manny Chavez"  (corrected in this edit in response to Paul catching my original mistake in this post). Manny Chavez had been a former desk mate of Morales at JMWAVE and had served with him earlier in other assignments as well. Chavez was assigned to work logistics with Artime's group - and as  you see in the study, he made a trip to Mexico that may have involved a stopover in Dallas.

Got off track there a bit but the point is that some level of correspondence between Morales and the Artime project, being run out of cover in Panama, might have been routine.  Its even possible they found a craft that they didn't need but thought JMWAVE might use it....Morales disagreed obviously.

Could it also mean something more than that...surely it could.  There is nothing as effective as hiding a message embedded in routine communications.

As a follow on to David's remark about Sturgis going to Dallas for Artime - one answer may well be the we do know Red Bird airport was used as a staging point for aircraft being reworked for sale or lease in CIA projects such as AMWORLD...Ray January was working with companies that did refurbishing and acceptance there.  That appears to have been a partial cover as the aircraft were then moved off to the Houston Air Center where the paperwork was actually completed for ultimate sale or lease, however the aircraft could be used by the CIA in the interim. 

You will find some discussion of that in our paper and more detail in Someone Would Have Talked (2010)...the initial research was done by Matthew Smith.

Its also worth noting that the abortive DRE bombing mission staged out of the New Orleans area in the summer of 1963 by Carlos and Victor Hernandez (and others) was very likely planned to use aircraft flown out of Texas, very likely staged from the Houston Air Center.

The timing would be consistent with that,  in December 1963 Artime's new project was heavily involved with sourcing various types of ships and boats for its upcoming operations and those efforts were being carried out by a cover company in Panama - Maritima BAM.  Beginning in the summer of 1963 JMWAVE staff had begun assisting the AMWORLD logistics effort in a variety of start up activities including identifying ships (including its first acquisitions, the Olga Patricia and Joanne) for purchase or lease...one of the JMWAVE staff identified in this new research was a co-worker of Morales and was assigned to AMWORLD to help with logistics although his that cover also enabled him to report on its security practices.

Adam,   from time to time Izquierdo has been mentioned as having been in Dallas,  Hemming tagged him as a shooter and he has also been offered up as the driver of the station wagon that picked up either Oswald or someone who looked something like Oswald on Elm Street after the shooting.  Certainly he had the skills, the nerve and the commitment to play almost any operational role in the assault in Dallas.

Matt, I'm going to defer that to David because he is much more up to speed on the crypts and I think he probably knows who the COS in question would have been - I think I do but best to defer to him. Interestingly, that particular doc appears to refer to a boat that someone thought might be useful for JMWAVE maritime ops or possibly for AMWORLD. 

I'll nudge David to respond to your question...

Don't feel bad Ron, we had to read it ourselves a number of times while we were organizing it and that was after being engaged with these names for a good long while  - there is no doubt its both deep and complex but this is real history, with multiple people, groups and separate agendas, all crossing each others paths over a half dozen years from 58-64.  And they were all involved in something extremely emotional and deeply personal for all of them.

Not trying to be wordy with the above but emotions were a lot of what was going on and alliances and associations came and went. The reason it is so extensively cited to documents and timelines is that to really get involved with these people you need to read what they were each doing over that period and a good bit of that is either documented or showed up later in their stories about each other.

On DRE, this actually only skims the surface on the DRE aspect, I'll be going into much more detail on that in my upcoming conspiracy monograph, showing multiple links between DRE in New Orleans and JMWAVE personnel in Miami (Joinnides and Morales but others as well)...and some possible links to Dallas as well.

Hang in there, and don't hesitate to ask questions here or to us by messenger or email...

Paul, the details of why their efforts failed are in the paper so that should help, on multiple occasions it was more a failure to insert them onto the island in contrast to any failure on their part.  By March of 1963 Cuba was a hugely difficult nut from a security standpoint - Dallas would have been a walk in he park in contrast.  Their paramilitary skills and marksmanship were quite good. It didn't help that for some unknown reason the CIA didn't really activate all its efforts to kill Castro until Feb/March...a much tighter time frame than gets into most discussions.

As to how high up and how the conspiracy evolved, I'm afraid you will have to wait on the conspiracy monograph for my view on that,  just throwing it out without extensive context would not be a sufficient answer.

And Felix did indeed become quite with a number of folks like Bush, but then again those were the people who supported the Contra effort in the face of everything Congress could do to rein in North et al.  

I do think you may find out a few things about Quintero and Rodriquez etc that will be new to you in the paper....hope so at least.

Oh yes, John was early into this...this is one of the first places we discussed the lead that Malcolm had sent me....its amazing how much there was to be learned about not just Jenkins but about  Quintero,  Rodriquez, Carlos Hernandez and a cadre of very expert and experienced paramilitary cadre trained by Jenkins.  Jenkins roles - and that of Robertson - in the Cuba Project were something we really knew nothing about until the Wheaton lead took us into this research.  

In the earliest months of the ARRB, Gene Wheaton contacted its staff with the simple statement that he might be able to offer a lead to them, a lead to someone who might have information on the Kennedy assassination.   Years later Malcolm Blunt found the released records describing the Wheaton contact, referred it to me and Stu Wexler and we did preliminary vetting of the two main names associated with that lead - Carl Jenkins and Rafael Quintero.  Stu also followed up by locating and contacting the main staff member who was in touch with Wheaton. Thanks to newly released CIA documents we were able to corroborate the background of both men, and their role in CIA anti-Castro operations.

Over the following decade, ongoing efforts at crypt cracking and massive document research by Bill Simpich and David Boylan provided us with a totally new look at Carl Jenkins, a man who had an extremely significant role not only in the Cuba Project, but in the new AMWORLD effort that kicked off in 1963.  A man whose operational significance goes far beyond the formerly mysterious figure of David Morales.

Over the last few  years that research led us from Jenkins into a host of names and associations that may be quite relevant to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy. And now thanks to the work of Rex Bradford, that full story - with document links and illustrations - is available online at the Mary Ferrell Foundation.  We urge serous researchers to read and ponder it, both for the new history it reveals and for further leads to the conspiracy.  You will find it at this link:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_Wheaton_Lead.html

David and I will both be here to help with questions -  especially David, whose knowledge and ability to recall the intricacies of the names and documents is way beyond mine.

No I really don't Cliff....the monograph is my current view of the actual conspiracy,  motive, its evolution, and its operational aspects.  A good number of years ago I drew my on conclusion that the medical and a variety of other evidence supported multiple shooters and a conspiracy had been in play in the attack - in that I would defer to the position you have taken for a very long time as well. 

I really don't have any interest in arguing with or convincing anyone there was a conspiracy, my interest has been in coming up with my best estimate of that conspiracy, and that is what is going into the monograph.  I'm just using the monograph to share my own  views after some 30 years at it....and that means just "share", not argue or evangelize.   I'll be eager to discuss it and elaborate as I can, but in reality its an opinion piece (with lots and lots of citations...grin). Certainly there may be more to it than I do see and I'm not bashful about admitting that either.

No, this book - In Denial - is about Cold War and contemporary deniable warfare - with a particular focus on the Cuba Project and the Bay of Pigs.  Some of the names in the book will show up again in the JFK case monograph, but this book is something quite different.   The JFK assassination monograph is about 150 pages at this point (compared to the 480 some for In Denial) and will be made available via the Mary Ferrell web site.  That draft of the monograph is complete, it is in peer review, but it will require some rewrite and considerable editing before it gets released.  Hard to say exactly when that will be but I certainly hope it will be only a matter of months.

In the meantime, some extensive and related research will be released on the Mary Ferrell site tomorrow - I'll be posting a thread on that as soon as it gets loaded and released.

Thanks David,  of course there are a number of very strong attachments to the popular history....no doubt I will need both luck and the truck load of sources...grin.

Thanks for the kind words Matt! 

In response to Cliff's post, perhaps what I could do on this section of the forum is just respond to questions about what is in the book, in particular as it relates to JFK.  Obviously its not all about his era given that I explore the conduct of secret warfare though the 20th century into the 21st.

Interestingly,  one of my book reviewers was struck by the fact that In Denial is more heavily cited than any of my previous works (with a broader diversity of sources).  The reason for that is especially in the chapters on the Cuba Project and the Bay of Pigs I am challenging much of the popular history  as it relates to both events under both Eisenhower and JFK - and if you go to war with popular history you better be prepared for serious push back.  Hence the extensive citations not just from one official record but from several (important since there was outright lying going on following on right before and right after the disaster at the BOP) as well as several of the individuals directly involved in the military operations aspect of the project. 

The same goes for the other areas which relate to JFK, specifically his response to what he learned from those first four months and how he put it into practice during his next two years - specifically in how he took control of covert action, from Tibet to the Congo. Of course he didn't abandon it, we all know that from his ongoing pursuit of action against Cuba - but he learned some serious lessons and attempted to put them into play with both covert action by the CIA and the military.  The sad part is that all he learned and what he was trying to do - even the lessons officially documented in the official inquiries into the Cuba Project - were effectively abandoned first by Johnson and even more dramatically by Nixon and Kissinger.

So - what I can do here is elaborate and answer questions about what is in the book.  In the book section of the forum I can discuss the book with those who are reading it and have details in hand -  including the details and reference to my citations.  But it takes the level of detail that is in the book and its citations to make any discussion meaningful.

Hopefully that approach will work.   In any event, with a little luck, within a few days David and I will give everyone here something which can be discussed in great detail, that relates to some of the names from In Denial (and yes that was a teaser...grin).

I'm happy to do that but I don't want it to look like I'm just advertising - if nobody protests I will do that tomorrow.  I did notice there was not much viewing of the thread in the book section...

I notice that a number of folks have gotten the Kindle version - if  you have already started reading feel free to send questions or observations my way either here or via email to larryjoe@westok.net

I couldn't agree more Gary, in fact if you wanted to reach out to Stu and Deb I suspect they could really use some help in addressing what is a huge collection of material on both JFK and RFK.  It will be a daunting task - but at least its one that is now possible thanks to Stu jumping in and the cooperation of John's sister.

Jumping in for Gary,  Stu Wexler has managed to capture John's material and has been doing work getting ready to upload it and make it available.  That is still in progress...but the good news is that it survives and will help preserve John's legacy. 

Ha, like that's gonna happen...although my wife did say something very similar....as I recall, several times...

It looks like there hasn't been a lot of new book discussion in this area in recent years, but rather than cluttering up the JFK discussion area I would like to present and answer questions about my newest book here.

https://www.amazon.com/Denial-Secret-Wars-Strikes-Tanks/dp/1734139331/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

In Denial joins Shadow Warfare (with Stu Wexler) and Creating Chaos to complete a three part study of cover warfare in both the 20th and 21st Centuries. 

Shadow Warfare dug deeply into why and how the United States carried out covert action - the tactics, tools, covers, practices and oversight (or lack thereof).  It also exposed the personal and legal risks involved for the personnel involved as well as the consequences for everyone - from collateral damage to the impact on American governance - especially in regard to relationship between the Commander in Chief and Congress. 

Creating Chaos is a study of political warfare, from the basics of political action through propaganda and disinformation and into full blown efforts to fragment and undermine targeted regimes. It examines the historical practices and then extends them through American and Soviet political warfare during the Cold War and into more contemporary political warfare of the Russian Federation, in Europe and against the United Stages. In doing so it details how age old practices have become dramatically more effective in an age of global interconnection, and in particular with global access to advanced targeting capabilities against social networks.

I approached In Denial as a similar study of covert action, comparing its practices in both the 20th and 21st Century.  In one sense it is an exploration of a simple question - why do regimes and political leaders consistently turn to secret warfare when it can be shown to almost always fruitless in the long run, with extremely negative political consequences and collateral damages.

However in doing that study, it quickly became apparent that the most highly visible and well documented example of secret warfare gone wrong was the Cuba Project / Bay of Pigs effort as conducted under the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. And in examining the huge amount of detail, including from a number of new sources, that story emerged into what can only be considered a rebuttal of much of the popular history of that effort - in particular as regards to the Bay of Pigs.

As it turns out much of the popular history and media coverage is based in both outright lies and intentionally planted misinformation. As one reader commented, In Denial is the most heavily cited book I've ever written.  And that's true, when you decide to joust with popular history  you need to be ready for the engagement - and both engagement and detail are what readers will find in the book.  Hopefully they will think it worth the read.

As requested I want to let those interested know that, as per schedule, In Denial / Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks is now available on Amazon in both kindle and print.  I won't be saying anything more here, other than commenting that there are a number of connections to JFK including an in depth discussion of the Cuba Project and the Bay of Pigs - which deconstructs and refutes much of the popular history on those events - as well as an extended discussion of Kennedy's reaction and course forward in regard to the lessons learned and covert action. 

https://www.amazon.com/Denial-Secret-Wars-Strikes-Tanks/dp/1734139331/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I will open a separate discussion in the Education Forum area on book discussions where I can respond to questions and hopefully discuss the book with readers - and I will be blogging and joining in various podcasts discussing it.

  -- after three years and with thanks to the efforts of numerous people who helped and my publisher, its finally here in some 475 pages...whew...  Larry

Actually I could visualize that Cliff, based on Harvey's working concept for ZRIFLE that suggests always having a Soviet linked patsy as part of  your executive action.  Of course in a way having a Russian "defector" as an asset acting for Castro goes a ways towards that scenario.

Seems a little heavy handed to actually introduce Soviet weapons though, its not like  you couldn't buy a high quality game rifle in a hundred places in Dallas with no questions asked.  Perhaps a scenario with the KGB using a high tech CIA secret weapon to get rid of Kennedy and destroy the Agency, even better than a few moles...

The one rule that is almost always in play is that weapons are selected based on the total mission...in Dallas that would include not only the selected shooting positions but the other aspects of the plan as a whole, including moving people in and out, the sources of the weapons used (in case something goes wrong and people are captured or their weapons recovered) and some sort of continuity with the overall intent i.e. who was to take the blame for the attack.  To some extent that also applies to the selection of the personnel - especially in the event something does go bad.

I'll leave two comments in one post....on the first for Robert, the image you show of a something being picked up and put in someone's pocket represents a totally lost piece of evidence, it was never officially recorded or described.  I've talked to the member of a family who also observed what they thought was a bullet strike in the grass in that area, near a manhole.  They notified police and we know an officer directed crime scene personnel over there - there is a photo of a CSI kit in the area with the photo angled back towards the TSBD.  However what they did or did not find appears in no report.  

As to Special Forces weapons, certainly, no disagreement there.  On the other hand covert and deniable operations as conducted by the CIA spent huge sums of money on obtained foreign sources weapons not traceable to US involvement or in other instances, as with Cuba, using commercially obtained weapons - the major point being deniablity and maintaining the image that conventional forces  forces were not involved in the action.  All of that looks sort of silly now but it was SOP in the fifties and early sixties.

Ron, as you say, caching a weapon would make perfect sense and has been standard practice in assaults in "denied" assaults where the shooters would be visible and immediately under suspicion by an aroused public/security force after the attack.  Bringing a hunting rifle into Dallas would be one thing, leaving with it after the shooting would be another.  We even have FBI report which mentions a several individuals with a rifle in the Plaza area days before the shooting - the only reason it was reported was somebody thought they might actually be doing "target practice".

We know cars were not searched in either knoll parking lot, we know the list of tag numbers disappeared. We know nothing was really searched that much in the TSBD after the rifle was found (no shipping crates opened) and no other buildings were searched. Caching and recovering the weapons would have been easy...especially if your plan calls for a suspicious weapon to be planted where it is quickly and easily recovered. I can't prove any of that but it once again it would be SOP in a truly organized and planned assault.  Only lone nuts abandon their weapon at the scene of the shooting where they actually work and then claim total innocence...sigh. 

You got it with an "I don't know"....I don't,  what I will say is that if you go with a scenario that points the attack towards a conspiracy and particularly towards Cuba and Castro it would be best not to go too exotic....also it minimizes the risk to your shooters to not be carrying something that would be out of place on a street or parking lot in Dallas Texas....and good hunting rifles would fit that profile. Same works if the shooter is caching a weapon for later recovery. 

Introducing something else, or any weapon that forces you to get up to close to your target, increases the risk and puts the plan at more risks by last minute changes to the security screen....distance is good if your shooters are up to it. We also  know that historically the Secret Service was sensitized towards pistol attacks and to up close threats, not to longer range attacks.

A couple of guys that went to work for Werbell in the years after the assassination very likely knew a good bit about what happened in Dallas...as to the rifles themselves,  anything on my part would be pure guesswork - I have heard the guys involved were well pleased and proud of their achievement so claiming trophies would not be inconsistent. 

What we do know is that the weapons given for use in the sniper attacks planned against Castro in Cuba were high quality sporting rifles with telescopic sights.  And those assaults involved one to two shooters in a very well scripted attack, one where the range was known in advance so the rifles sights could be appropriately sighted in advance. Generally speaking those rifles were in the same class as the type and caliber weapon two men tried to buy from Robert McKewon in Houston shortly before the assassination but failed. 

From what I've seen the rifles used would have been quality sporting/game rifles not military weapons - which would be much better for infiltration and for that matter for recovering afterwards - standard practice being to hide the weapons locally and let someone else recover it well after the fact so as to make exfiltration easier.