Doug Campbell

Mr. Gil, Please do not hold a Carlson segment up as a history lesson. Especially this one. He blew it. He got the history completely wrong. At the 1:21-mark of the YouTube segment you linked to above, he tells his audience (and repeats later) that the "Nixon-Helms/Who-Shot-John"-conversation took place on June 23, 1972. Come on, man. This is Watergate 101. June 23, 1972 was the date of "The Smoking Gun"-Tape, in which Haldeman & Nixon discuss CIA thowing a block on FBI. The "Nixon-Helms/Who-Shot-John"-conversation took place on October 8, 1971. Over 8-1/2 months prior to the Watergate Break-In. This link, scroll down. The "Nixon-Helms/Who-Shot-John"-conversation is Tape #OVAL-587-007a. http://nixontapes.org/rmh.html You can listen to this conversation at the following link, Nixon says "who shot John..." at the 17:30-mark: http://nixontapes.org/rmh/587-007a.mp3 In another segment that aired around the same time as the above clown-show-of-incorrectness, Carlson invoked the "Nixon-Helms/Who-Shot-John"-conversation again and again incorrectly informed his audience that the conversation took place on June 23rd of '72, presenting it in the context of Nixon threatening Helms over the Kennedy Hit to get help with Watergate, Carlson saying the conversation "shows a President under siege by the exploding Watergate scandal..." Again, the "Nixon-Helms/Who-Shot-John"-conversation took place in October of 1971. The Watergate break-in would not happen for another 8 months. Nixon was absolutely not "under siege" from a scandal triggered by an event that wouldn't occur for another 8 months in October of '71. This is not a history lesson. It's misinformation. World's Laziest (or drunkest?) Research Staff. How did they get that basic information that wrong? It's beyond ridiculous.

Yes Sir, Mr. Brancato, most assuredly a thread regarding Prouty. That said, in the case of the inaccurate, imaginary connection between GHWB/Zapata Offshore and the operational designation "ZAPATA" & the names of the vessels used, I do not believe Prouty had a "mistaken belief". I believe Prouty knew the story was made-up. Not only that, but I believe~ given that the letter to Weisberg is dated less than (4) months after Bush's inauguration~ that it's entirely probable that Prouty was the Original Source OF this diversionary twaddle. I believe that~ in the case of the letter to Orr cited earlier in this thread by Mr. Reeves, and the letter I cited to Weisberg~ we have in these two examples TWO undeniably identified instances of Prouty wilfully and knowingly feeding false, imaginary conspiratorial connections to Assassination Researchers, specifically designed for them to believe, so that they might not only BELIEVE them, but RUN with them.

Greg! Where you been, my friend? One day you're sitting in my office talking about William Harvey, then you drop off for 2 years! Lol. Hope all is well, my friend. Next time you get up here, holla at me.

You can post all the factoid and book excerpts and quotes you want, post little nuggets about GHWB in dozens of posts all weekend. Make your type-face red, blue, purple, Dupont Chrome-Illusion colored if you want. Hell, Make every other word a different color, but the fact remains: The operational designation "ZAPATA" was in no way a reference to GHW Bush's company. ZERO. NADA. NONE. It was a geographic reference to the area of Cuba on which the plan called for the invasion force to land. And no amount of copy/paste posting is going to change the reality. The claim that the operation was named in ANY way for Bush's company is False. The notion that Operation ZAPATA was named for Zapata Offshore is NOT. TRUE. Doesn't matter who put in in a book. It AIN'T TRUE. STUDY DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. DO! THE! RESEARCH! Get your nose in those ARCHIVES!!! FAST! LEEEEEEEARN SOMETHING REAL. * It started as an "operational plan" called "The Zapata Plan." There was also a plan to land at Oriente Province. It's name referencing the gographical area of Oriente Province. There was also a plan to land south of Trinidad. It's name referencing the geographical area of the town of Trinidad. *The "Zapata Plan" called for the invasion force to land at the Zapata Peninsula. *This plan~to land at the Zapata Peninsula~was chosen in the end. *It was thus re-designated "Operation ZAPATA." Had the Oriente Plan been chosen, it would have thus been re-christened "Operation ORIENTE", just as the designation "The Zapata Plan" became "Operation ZAPATA." Had they chosen to land at Trinidad, we would all be discussing "Operation TRINIDAD" rather than Operation ZAPATA. *The invasion force did, in fact, land on the Zapata Peninsula, as planned, according to The Zapata Plan. There is not now, nor was there EVER a connection between Zapata Offshore and the operational designation "Operation ZAPATA for the Bay Of Pigs Invasion. Never. It's made up. A story tailor-made for folks like you & I to believe. (Again, all credit to Alan for that line.) The claim is bogus now, and it was bogus when Prouty tried to feed it to Wiesberg in 1989.

I'm sorry. No. Any member of this forum can type 10 pages worth of facts & factoids about GHW Bush and his Zapata Oil, but it will not change the truth. "Zapata" was a geographic reference, and there was never any connection whatsoever between Bush & his company, and the assignation of the operational designation ZAPATA to the Bay of Pigs Invasion operation. The notion is false, the allegation untrue. ZAPATA was a geographic reference to the area of Cuba at which that particular plan called for the invasion force to land. Just like the "Oriente Plan" called for a landing at Oriente Province, Cuba. Just like the "Trinidad Plan" called for the force coming ashore south of the town of Trinidad, Cuba. The "Zapata Plan" called for a landing on The Zapata Peninsula. This is the plan that was ultimately chosen. The Zapata Plan thus became Operation ZAPATA. The Exile force thus landed on The Zapata Peninsula, at The Bay Of Pigs. As planned. There never was a connection between Bush/Zapata and Operation ZAPATA. It's a myth. A Prouty-pushed myth. The connection is not real. The Bush/Zapata/BOP Conspiracy Fluff is not true. It's a lie.

I'm glad you brought this up. It really is curious that Prouty would clam up and decide not to chime in to help propagate the Disinformation regarding Bush, Zapata, etc., and play dumb in 1992. Prouty was on the very vanguard of the spread of this particular fiction, casting it like fishing lure in the direction of Harold Weisberg as early as April of 1989 in letter form, not even 4 months removed from Bush's Inauguration. It's just another example of Fletcher Prouty spreading provably-false, made up nonsense. Last (2) paragraphs at the following link: https://archive.org/details/nsia-ProutyLFletcher/nsia-ProutyLFletcher/Prouty L Fletcher 57/ "He married a girl named 'Barbara J'," Let's start there. he absolutely did not. Barbara Bush was not given a middle name of any sort upon her birth. She lived her entire life with no middle name, no middle initial, much less an initial "J". The name of the boat did not relate to her in any way, shape form or fashion whatsoever. Nothing but Fluff. An example of what my dear friend Alan Dale calls "Stories tailor-made for people like us to believe.". (A descriptive that applies to most of Prouty's product, in my opinion.) If you have the benefit of having studied the Primary Resource Documentation regarding the BOP and the run-up to it (rather than books full of fluff), you already know. You don't have to believe nonsense. How many people here know what the boat's name was before it was re-named "Barbara J"? ( @Rob Clark is not eligible, he already knows the correct answer.) It was The "BETTY S". BARBARA J is very simply a variation of the boat's previous name. BETTY S. Chosen by the Cuban Exile crew who re-painted and re-named it. BETTY S.- (2)-syllable female first name that starts with "B", and an initial. BARBARA J.- (2)-syllable female first name that starts with a "B", and an initial. It really was that simple. It's not a cryptic reference to an "Oil Tycoon-Secret Agent-Spy Guy"' 's wife. The decidedly-not-conspiratorial-truth of the matter is that the Cuban Exile crew who repainted and re-named it simply chose a variation of the boat's previous name. Not Bush's wife. No. Stop that. The people who DID re-name it were just not very imaginative. @Larry Hancock can back me up on this, the ship once known as the "BETTY S." Now, the other bit of disinformation that many people believe, but don't bother to study the Primary Resource Documention ABOUT: The origin of the operational designation "ZAPATA", as alleged by Prouty in the above-linked letter to Weisberg. This, too, is provable disinformation. All ya gotta do is reeeeeeeeeeead those documents. it's all there. In the declassified record. "ZAPATA" is...ready?...a geographic reference. Here's how "Operation ZAPATA" really got it's name. The USG had more than one Operational Plan for what eventually became the Bay Of Pigs Invasion. In fact, they had a few. Each Operational Plan was named for the geographic region of Cuba at which that specific plan called for the invasion force to land. The Oriente Plan. The Oriente Plan called for the invasion force to make landfall somewhere at Oriente Province, Cuba. The Trinidad Plan. This particular plan called for the invasion force to land somewhere in the vicinity of...? Yep, you guessed it. The area just south of Trinidad, Cuba. The "Zapata Plan". THIS is the plan that was, in the end, decided upon. The Zapata Plan. WHY was it called The "Zapata Plan"? Because it called for the landfall to take place on Cuba's ZAPATA Peninsula! That's right! There's absolutely NO mystery here!!! None! The "Zapata Plan" became "Operation Zapata." Had they chosen to hit Oriente Province, we'd ALL be talking about "Operation Oriente." Or another choice, and we'd be discussing "Operation Trinidad." When the absolute final choice was made, The "Zapata Plan" became "Operation Zapata." It really is THAT simple. (Again, if you've studied the Primary Resource Documentation, you are already aware of this. You've already dismissed the nonsense Prouty was trying to feed Weisberg.) Now, if you actually go ahead and take a look at a map of Cuba, you will note the greeeeeeat, big'ol' "Zapata Peninsula" there on the south side of Cuba. Notice also WHERE The Bay Of Pigs is actually located. That's right! The Bay Of Pigs IS LOCATED AT The ZAPATA Peninsula! Not ONLY is The Bay Of Pigs actually located AT The ZAPATA Peninsula, The Bay Of Pigs is bordered on 3-of-4 sides by a 1,682 square mile swamp. This giant swamp's name?...The ZAPATA Swamp!!! "But that's CRAZY! It's BUSH!!!!! It CAN'T be the actual name of the actual place where the actual thing happened, you...you...McADAMS!!!" ...No. Just no. All you have to do is The Research. This is not conjecture on my part. The whats-and-whos-and-whys of the Operational Designations, the different geographic regions that they were named for, it's all in the official Declassified Record of the event. And it has been for YEARS. And many of us read it years ago. We need not continue to believe nonsense. ...but here we have Prouty gleefully spreading this very disinformation, just-shy of (4) months after Bush's inauguration. (Check out all those question marks after the word "Coincidence" Lol. Tell me THAT ain't "Fishin' ". ) The truth is, it had nothing at all to do with Bush. Many of us have studied the documentation, many know the true circumstances. Because we know the true circumstances, we can identify an untruthful claim REGARDING the circumstances. The "Bush/Zapata/Barbara J"-claims are provable Disinformation. Therefore, in the above-linked letter to Weisberg, we have yet another identifiable instance of Prouty actively, willfully, agressively spreading provably-false, Now-Known-To-Be-Disinformation. The only source for the story that Prouty had ANYTHING to do with the purchase of those boats is Prouty himself. The claim, therefore, is immediately without legs to stand on.

A "phrase"? 55 words across (2) sentences from (2) different paragraphs is your idea of a "phrase"?(!) Conveniently, Wray's stated reasoning for insisting on the release of a full-interview transcript is included in this 55-word "phrase" excised by Mr. Carter. Also missing completely from the excised portion is any opinion whatsoever expressed by Wray regarding "Wray's own work." Read it again: An "opinion" of "Wray's work" by Wray does NOT exist within the 55 words excised. PLEASE with the misdirectional nonsense.

The other 50% of the Prattling Podcasters here. Mr. Carter suggests that we were guilty of "failure to 'read the footnotes'", and that we effectively "misled the audience". Let's talk about footnotes and misleading your audience. Specifically, Mr. Carter's Footnote #6 from his recent article. The document footnoted #6 in Mr. Carter's article is a memo written by ARRB staffer Tim Wray on October 23rd of 1996, following the deposition of Prouty. This memo has been misrepresented and lied about over & over, and Mr. Carter's article was no exception. Read the memo ~in it's entirety (NOT just the few lines Mr. Carter saw fit to include)~ at Page 70 at the following link: https://89e2ba32-c324-491e-a629-eacc27d8f25c.filesusr.com/ugd/325b1c_4ff67bdfd4c74303aeb70a9696d43d88.pdf Mr. Carter~ in his zeal to tow the K&K/BOR Company Line~ used an age-old and simple device to completely excise every bit of the CONTEXT of Mr. Wray's memo from Mr. Wray's memo. That device? " ... " The "dot-dot-dot"-edit. Here's how this memo is represented in Mr. Carter's article: See the " ... " between the words "fluff" and "There's"? So, what did Mr. Carter excise from the memo (so that his readers wouldn't read it)? Let's read it together. The excised portion is bracketed in green: Mr. Carter~ and others writing recent defenses of Prouty~ try over and over again to portray this memo as Wray admitting a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, and expessing worry that if they only make available the Summary of the interview, that they'll somehow be found-out. "If we don't publish the whole interview transcript, then people will KNOW we ambushed this Truth-Teller!" Completely misrepresentative, totally effin' WRONG, and disingenuous to say the least. When you read the approximately 55 words that Mr. Carter excised from the memo~ PLUS everything AFTER the phrase "hatchet-job"~ you suddenly understand, you suddenly realize, you suddenly GET exactly what Wray was conveying in the memo. Wray was NOT saying, "We should publish the entire interview or else folks are gonna know we did a hatchet-job on Prouty." No! If Wray and the ARRB were trying to hide a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, why then would Wray *insist that the entire interview be published in transcript-form, word-for-word*? Yeah, that's how you hide stuff! With full and complete disclosure, right?? With the words excised by Mr. Carter RESTORED to the body of the memo, you realize what Wray is actually saying with the memo: "Prouty folded like a pair of dime-store socks, and unless we publish the entire interview, it's gonna LOOK like we were just picking on some crazy old guy." And Wray was 100% correct. Mr. Carter is fond of admonishing folks to "read the footnotes." After reading the entire memo on the air, Rob and myself took the opportunity to give our listeners a piece of advice that they should use moving forward: "If you see a "dot-dot-dot" edit in an article, IMMEDIATELY read the entire piece being quoted, ESPECIALLY what's being excised, because~chances are~ it's important." The only "hatchet-job" around here is the one Mr. Carter performed on Tim Wray's memo. The very epitome of "cherry-picking".

“I think your inability to read Coup, after three attempts, might say a good deal more about you than it does Albarelli's investigation?” -Linda O’Hara It might. But it doesn’t.

I think you mis-quoted me. The full quote: "It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States." 100%. On. The. Money. It's a ridiculous notion, and borders on being insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's ever studied the CIA Primary Resource Documentation of The Case in any detail. We know better. Re: Morley and Albarelli: I can believe that. Morley's a smart guy, knows his business. It's almost a certainty that he thought the same thing I did regarding Joannides' name appearing in the datebook. I'd have responded the same way he did. But with more eye-rolls, probably. If your only "proof" that Angleton ever dined with Lafitte is the datebook, keep it. Not interested. Those entries are no more accurate a reflection of events than the Joannides entries. Oh, and I bought the book on 12/5/21. I've tried to read it 3 times. I always end up just shaking my head and logging onto the Mary Ferrell Foundation archives to cleanse my palette.

Two points: 1. The single most consistent roadblock, the one person throwing the most ridiculous nonsense-speak out, the one person doing the most to impede the research community in gaining any access to the findings of the previous analysis on the datebook is the one person on the internet doing the most to convince the research community that the datebook is real. 2. Given what we know about the UBER-prolific use of aliases and pseudonyms by CIA personnel during Covert Cold War Operations of this time period, the very appearance of the name 'Joannides" in reference to George Joannides of the CIA is an unmistakable indication that the datebook entry referring to Joannides was made after Jefferson Morley's fine work in bringing to light exactly who-and-what George Joannides was, both in the early 60's and late 70's. Conan-Doyle's Holmes: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever's left- however improbable- must be the truth." It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would use dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States. It's a ridiculous notion. Now that the impossible has been eliminated, what's left? The Joannides entries were added after Morley informed The Research Community of who- and- what Joannides was. And since the entries were made after Morley's work on Joannides, then the entries were not made in 1963. What should have "set the hook" turns out to have been an unfortunate oversight, an over-reach on the part of...well, whoever thought adding Joannides to the datebook was a good idea. Should have used "Mr. Howard", or "Walter Newby".

We have ALL benefited immeasurably from Dr. Newman's marked aversion to~ and ability to spot~ manufactured evidence for a few decades now. Thanks again, Dr. Newman. Some of us appreciate you more than you'll ever know.

Your version of events is inaccurate. I absolutely did NOT pull the meme when you complained, that’s UTTER and complete bullsxxx. I left it up. For hours. HOURS. (And never heard a peep out of FB, BTW.) I pulled it only and when the artist who made the graphic complained. (Which is absolute fair play. At that point I was more than glad to. After all, he did make it). Several hours later. Tell me again how Joannides kept his real name from EVERYBODY HE EVER WORKED WITH IN THE FIELD EVER IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER…EXCEPT Pierre Lafitte. LOL

@Leslie Sharp THIS is the meme that violated your copyright? Right? On one of the podcasts I produce, "Quick Hits", we have (2) segments that would be fantastic vehicles with which to relate this whole, ridiculous tale to listeners: "Facebook Shenanigans" and "That's Dumb Sxxx". I am having an exeedingly difficult time deciding which segment to utilize. But this whole thing is just to ridiculous not to share, this... Cinque-esque onslaught of spam. Tell us again how Joannides felt safe to abandon the 1st Rule Of Spycraft only when conspiring to murder the President, but took extraordinary measures to adhere to that rule and protect his true identity on every other covert operation he ever had a part in for his entire career , BAR NONE. Please explain why he decided to use his real name ONLY when engaged in High Treason, ONLY while helping to plot the murder of John Kennedy. Miss Sharp would have us believe that career CIA officers who consistently went above and beyond with the use of operational aliases and Pseudonyms throughout their entire careers while engaged in covert operations would suddenly have absolutely no compunction whatsover with revealing their real names, their Real-World Identities to a known-conman, a KNOWN-PROLIFIC FBI INFORMANT, whilst engaging in an ilicit operation to murder their own President with this known-FBI Informant. In this instance and this instance alone, they deemed the use of their real-world identities...Perfectly Safe. Again, I know better.

David, The most basic tenet of tradecraft. Rule Number ONE: Protect your true identity, your true, given name. At all costs. PERIOD. Never EVER use your true name in the field, NEVER use your true name operationally. Aliases in the field with assets, pseudonyms on internal CIA documents. To protect-above and beyond anything else- the true, real-world identities of the agents executing the operation. For (3) reasons. Safety, Secrecy, Security. The Cubans for whom George Joannides served as case officer did NOT know him as George Joannides. they knew him as "Mr. Howard." On internal CIA documents pertaining to Anti-Castro Operations, one of the pseudonyms used to protect his true identity was "Walter Newby"(NO doubt that there are dozens more of both operational aliases and pseudonyms for Joannides that we are still completely unaware of). Even on internal memoranda never meant to ever see the light of day outside CIA, pseudonyms were used to hide the true identity of the agents involved in the operations set forth in said paperwork. For (3) very basic, very critical reasons: Safety, Secrecy, Security. Just a few of the aliases used by David Morales: Dr. Diego Mardones; Thomas Allen; Miguel P. Cossio; Henry Yopchick; Dr. Diego Gonzalez; Stanley Zamka; Dr. Diego Miranda. ...that we KNOW of. All aliases used by Morales in legit, sanctioned ops. Why? Safety. Secrecy. Security. Again, THE most basic rule of tradecraft. At one point, Morales had addresses in Coral Gables, Los Angeles, and NYC simultaneously. All under a different alias. All with diffent back stories, pocket litter, back-stopage. Heck, at one point, it was made to look as if one of his aliases had a new roommate. The roommate was ALSO a Morales alias. Why? For Safety. Secrecy. Security. David Atlee Phillips? Just some of his aliases: John Nadleman; Michael Choaden; Walter Brackton; Paul D. Langavin. When asked how many operational aliases he used over the course of his career, Phillips told the HSCA, "Well, over a period of 25 years, I suppose over a hundred..." Over 100. Antonio Veciana never claimed to have ever known the name David Phillips, only Maurice Bishop. he never even heard the name Phillips until he met Gaeton Fonzi in the '70s. Protecting one's true identity, one's true, given name was absolutely Paramount. Paramount for these agents while working in legit, sanctioned operations. BUT...after deciding to take part in The Blackest Of Black Operations-- an operation designed and implemented to assassinate the sitting President of The United States-- these agents are going to throw out the MOST basic and elementary tenet of Tradecraft and tell Lafitte their true, given names?? Absolutely not. ESPECIALLY in the context of a plot to murder the sitting POTUS by his very own intelligence services. It's...simply not believable. The very notion that George Joannides-- or ANY career CIA officer-- would gladly, voluntarily tell Lafitte his true, given name, reveal his real-world identity while working within a plot to murder the sitting President but took extraordinary measures to protect his true identity while working to topple/kill Castro is simply not realistic, and reason enough alone to dismiss the datebook. In every other operational interest, great lengths are gone to, for Safety, Secrecy, Security. ...EXCEPT when they decide to kill the President?? Then they don't give a damn about this Safety, Secrecy, or Security? Suddenly, in THIS case- the all-important protection of their true identities means absolutely nothing? To heck with it? Only when conspiring to murder Kennedy? Ineffable twaddlespeak. It's a bridge too far for me. I know better.