Joe Bauer

Those are such lightweight revelations.

First time readers coming across these in the new release aren't aware of the 100's of other heavier ones that we all know so well.

In regards to warnings about JFK and Oswald's murders...readers should know the minimum others such as Rose Cheramie, Joseph Milteer, The Chicago FBI received call from "Lee" etc.

Regard's Oswald, how about the Dallas PD ( or Sheriff's office) dispatcher who was called the night before Oswald was killed with a warning that they were going to kill Oswald the next day?

And this dispatcher knew Jack Ruby and claimed that the warning caller was indeed Jack Ruby?

These new releases seem like meager, picked through left overs. The main course meat and potatoes and deserts have already been eaten by shredders.

Richard A. Clarke: Warnings | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO ...

▶ 6:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCBJSmWY6nE

Jun 30, 2017 - Uploaded by Real Time with Bill Maher

Richard A. Clarke – former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and ...

Kirk G.

I like your basic concept of a film series ( Netflix/TV ) flowing through and examining the entire 1960's in America, which was a decade of such dynamic and dramatic events and daring questioning change in so many areas of our society, it will for sure be of greater interest to future generations. 

When one thinks about the nationally distributed A-list movie theater films about JFK and Dallas since 11,22,1963, of course only one ever captured the big audience - Oliver Stone's JFK.

You have to give Oliver Stone credit. 

He knew he had to "entertain" his audience as much as make a powerful political statement that in and of itself was not something Americans would find entertaining as much as unsettling and disturbing. 

He managed to do so with a great "who done it"  political intrigue thriller crime film and with a creatively unique, quick paced and attention grabbing cinematic structure ( and with really good and powerful sound editing ) that just kept the audience rapt throughout.

He also loaded the cast top-to-bottom with many of our top movie actors of that time.

I am sure he knew that doing so would give the film much more weight than one with lesser star or unknown actors.

I went to see Stone's JFK twice when it first came out. And each time the theater was sold out. I still watch the film maybe once a year. It's still a very interesting cinematic production that holds me every time.

You really have to have some top star actors in a film about past historical events to hold and attract paying viewers.

"All The Presidents Men" would have never done so well if Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford weren't the main characters in the film. They were the top male star actors of their day.

Movie goers more often than not go to see films just because of "top stars" in the lead roles.

Parkland's biggest name actors were James Dale, Marcia Harden, Colin Hanks, Jack Haley, Ron Livingston... who?

Yes Billy Bob Thornton, Paul Giamatti and Zac Efron had side roles...but none carried the weight of a top draw actor.

There was a JFK side plot film planned 3 years ago that was supposed to star Kate Blanchett and written by David Mamet. The name was to be "Blackbird." Really interesting political intrigue crime thriller theme.

My guess is that with Blanchett ( our top draw older actress) as the lead actor and Mamet writing, the film would in the least, probably break even. However, the film  was shelved for some reason.

I don't think there will ever be a "Movie Theater" film about the JFK assassination that could make much money anymore.  Multiplex theaters have turned into primarily adolescent gathering places that cater to their video game, comic and fantasy book obsessions. 

Stephen King's JFK TV mini-series sounded as if it had a different and interesting take of a time traveler going back to the scene of the crime. I didn't see it so I don't know if it worked.

But it will take some new, different and really creative perspectives to successfully make and market any future JFK 11,22,1963 films and do so with a profit.

I do want to comment on Vince Palamara's post regards the never ending interest in the JFK assassination ( for 54 years now! ) despite many predictions of this waning.

The JFK assassination effected every American (over the age of say 12 ) when it happened much more deeply than I think we've ever truly realized. It's so deep in our conscious and subconscious. To see our most youthfully attractive and virile and inspiring president ever, taken out in such a brutal way and on film for us to see over and over and over for decades, it's our nation's most effecting post traumatic stress event of our lifetimes post WWII ( 9-11 perhaps second? ) and it doesn't take much for the millions in this country who were alive on 11,22,1963 to instantly re-live something so shockingly violent. sad...and society wide unsettling.

And since the crime has always been considered unsolved by most Americans...this just adds to it's effecting nature with suspicion and doubt about our own government.

It's amazing how many major films in the last 50 years reference the JFK assassination in their scripts even though it may not directly connect with the main plot. I was watching the Mark Wahlberg film "The Shooter" the other night...and there were two clear references to 11,22,1963. They mentioned the grassy knoll and Jack Ruby shooting Oswald.  So many other movies have done this the last 50 years.

This continuous referencing in major films even after 50 years is a reflection of how deep in our psyches the JFK event is and has been all this time.

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Joe: I don't have plans to see the "LBJ" film. I missed seeing "Mark Felt" because of lack of time. Hopefully it will show up soon at Redbox. I met Felt one time at an event arranged by Ed Miller who was convicted with him in the FBI 'black bag" break-in criminal cases and am mentioned in his autobiography. President Reason pardoned both Felt and Miller.

Forgot about Felt's conviction and Reagan's pardon of him. What good are expensive and serious abuse of power crime convictions when you have Republican presidents in office?

I watched "All The President's Men" again a few months ago on TV. This showing had an odd and curious edit at the end.

In the original film, there is a scene in the ending where Carl Bernstein unexpectedly bangs on Bob Woodward's residence door. Woodward opens the door and we see a very upset Bernstein...and he ( Bernstein ) simply shouts in an outraged tone 11 words......

"The Son-Of-A-Bitch pardoned the Son-Of-A-Bitch! "

Referring to President Ford's pardon of Nixon.

The TV showing of "All The President's Men" edited out this scene. Why? It was a telling and compelling end wrap and only took up a few seconds in the original film.  

My wife and I will be viewing the "Mark Felt" film this weekend at our local independent theater.

She saw "Marshall" this last weekend. Gave it 3 and 1/2 stars.

No plans to see LBJ.

Ex-stripper Heidi Rikan was working for the mob in Washington, DC. White House Call Girl tells how a call girl operation she was running at the time led to the Watergate break-in, which brought down Tricky Dick Nixon himself.

Needless to say, this is not part of the usual Watergate story that has come down to us over the decades. It is also only fair to point out that this version of the story might be dismissed out of hand as being dangerous "revisionist" history. If you're not careful, you might end up being called a conspiracy theorist.

You can also be called crazy—which is what happened to a young lawyer named Phillip Bailley, one of the principal witnesses to this ignored bit of American history. When he was foolish enough to blow the whistle on Rikan and her call girl ring, he was locked up at St. Elizabeth's, the District of Columbia's mental hospital, in the ward for the criminally insane.

For forty years we've only heard the Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein perspective on Watergate. Now we've got the photographs for the revisionist model. What's more, we've got Heidi's little black book.

White House Call Girl was published last season in an eBook edition only. The paperback edition includes new information on the murder of call girl—and playmate of Vice President Spiro Agnew—Pat Adams. With the help of newly-released FBI documents, we fill in more of the blanks in this long-suppressed story.

Just curious.

How many members here have seen the Rob Reiner LBJ film?

How many plan to?

How many don't plan to see it?

Any commentary by those who have seen the film would be appreciated.

Questions to those who see the film.

Do you think the film is worthy in a true and honest historical perspective way?

Especially in the context of informing younger generations about the most important aspects of LBJ and his political life accomplishments?

Did the film deal with 11,22,1963 in anyway more than as just a starting point?

Doug, your true insider's take on John Dean and his wife Maureen ( and her intriguing high class call girl background ) is interesting and believable.

John Dean always came across to me ( I watched those hearings ) as a very crafty and self-protecting individual.

Someone who was always several moves ahead of everyone else in planning and carrying out his personal legal defense and distancing strategy.

I see. Thanks Doug.

5 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Article: Pay attention to Clint Hill, skip theories

http://bismarcktribune.com/opinion/editorial/pay-attention-to-clint-hill-skip-theories/article_a1cc073a-1a31-520a-89af-0318a635ce24.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share

Doug, I see the Clint Hill article in triplicate...but what are the reasons for posting this?

Thanks

Doug that article says it all.

Nixon was so involved with organized crime... it was incredibly obvious.

Young people today look at JFK times as we did Lincoln's?  Ancient history?

Yes, in general this is probably true.

Yet, the 2016 film "Jackie" ( who was also a part of that ancient history ) with Natalie Portman as Jackie, actually made 25 million with a production budget of 12 million.

Of course, Jackie's story combined with her incredible physical beauty and almost royalty icon life made for a much more compelling movie story and draw, especially from a woman's point of view.

What younger than 30 person would want to pop $10 (and more for pop corn and soda ) to see a sentimentalized and somewhat sanitized two hour story of a hound dog faced, Texas drawl good ole boy who liked to humiliate others with sadistic minded jokes?

As I have posted many times, there are no standardized history books that come close to describing the true influence and power of the Mafia throughout the mid-to-late 1900's in this country.

The Mafia had Hoover. They had Nixon. They had Don Nixon.

Who do you think had corrupted Spiro Agnew all those years in his position in Baltimore and as Governor of Maryland? 

Bill Harvey considered mafia Capo Johnny Roselli a true patriot and would pick him to watch his back over anyone else?

One of the great false realities America has been living in throughout the 20th century is the denial of how much organized crime had control of some of our top leaders all the way to the presidency.

I knew during the elections of 1968 and 1972 that Nixon was a Mafia president. His pardon of Hoffa was just one of many actions Nixon took to reveal this.

Hoover, Nixon, LBJ...all so much more corrupted ( with Mafia connections ) than our main stream history books have ever dared reveal.

And Nixon wasn't the only one to equivocate regards remembering where he was when JFK was hit.

G.W.H. Bush's "can't remember" was always the most blatant, flagrant and suspicious "where were you?" answers of all.

The opening weekend of a major new film is almost always it's highest ticket sales time.

Just checked "LBJ" 's ticket sales for this weekend ( it's opening ) through Mojo.  They list this at 1.1 million dollars.

The production budget of the film was $35 million. "LBJ" will be lucky to pass $5 million in it's total distribution run.

Guess impersonating LBJ is not something Woody Harrelson fans really care to see.

Well, at least the film surpassed the opening weekend ticket sales of Tom Hanks "Parkland" which was one of the greatest American cinema bombs in the last 40 years ( seriously, it was )  and which was pulled from theaters less than two weeks after opening.

On 11/4/2017 at 7:50 PM, James DiEugenio said:

That was really good for the summer of 1967.  The only part I disagree with is when he says that the WC was not really a put up job.  Today we know it was a put up job.

The other part is when he says there are hundreds of documents yet to be declassified.  Well, it was actually more like thousands that the ARRB declassified from 1994-98.

At the AARC conference a few years ago, Andrew Kreig played part of this.  Tony Summers, started screaming and did his best James Phelan/Walter Sheridan impersonation denouncing the DA.

Yet he failed to point out one thing that was wrong in this address.  In other words, it was the technique of smearing someone without addressing the facts in evidence.

I should add one other point about this.  At this point in time, Garrison did think the assassination was a plot centered around Cuba with men who had formerly been associated with the CIA.  Later, after a professor from Ohio University wrote him a 25 page handwritten letter explaining how our Vietnam policy was reversed within weeks after Kennedy's death, Garrison changed his mind about this and believed that Vietnam was also a part of the equation. That is amazing since at that time nobody even considered Vietnam as part of the reasons for the plot.  (Summers denies that to this day.) And he later concluded that the conspiracy included active CIA officers, along with Cuban exiles, and the Lansky connected mob.

Finally, one can see that the effectiveness of this speech, with almost no visual supplements, really foreshadowed what NBC was going to do with The  Tonight Show appearance.  In that one they loaded up Carson and had their lawyers pre interview Garrison so that Carson would be led with cue cards all the way. I like to think that this was because Carson was still an employee of the Sarnoffs--who owned NBC-- at that time.  And the Sarnoffs had minutely controlled the Walter Sheridan NBC hit piece down to dealing with Dean Andrews personally to prep his appearance on the one hour hatchet job. So there was no way they were going to let Garrison have a fair shake on The Tonight Show. As I told David Giglio in his interview with me at Our Hidden History, Mort Sahl helped arrange that Carson interview.  After the show Carson was so upset that when he met with Mort backstage, he told him, "You will never be on this program again!"  And he was not.  Not until Jay Leno took the show over.

If anything, Garrison understated how bad the MSM was and would continue to be.  Which we are still  coping with today, a half century after. He really was a prophet in many ways.

 

Jim, I remember watching this Garrison "Equal Time" presentation when it aired.

I was 15.

To me it was shockingly powerful.

I was always interested in current political doings and affairs and social issues on a national level, even from my days as a 12 year old, reading about such things in our school weekly reader ( JFK's Peace Corps, his "New Frontier" enthusiasm regards science and our space program and his youth physical fitness challenging -the 50 mile hike, etc. ) and in our local newspaper every day,  just before I would wrap 100 of them and deliver them throughout our neighborhood.

JFK, and of course beautiful Jackie Kennedy, drew me in with their dynamic more youthful energy and looks, challenging speeches and programs and seemingly progressive stances ( I was a product of welfare poverty and sensed JFK at least had some feeling for us in the lower classes ) as I am sure they did with millions of other young Americans. I was simply inspired with hope by JFK.

I was quite traumatized with JFK's murder ( when I was 12 ) and equally so seeing Oswald whacked by Jack Ruby in a police department building live on national TV 2 days later.

I sensed darkly right away, that we were being kept from the truth of those two events and saw Jim Garrison as something of a courageous lone Knight standing up to what ever forces were perpetrating this truth hiding.

Yes, my faith in and admiration for Garrison came mostly just from my young gut instinct ( wasn't reading much of the early deep JFK research except what was being published in newspapers, magazines and what I saw on TV )  but my whole life I have trusted and used these inner instincts which almost always have turned out to be the right ones as far as guiding me toward the honest and just truth.

Garrison's nationally broadcast rebuttal to NBC was simply mind blowing to most Americans I was sure. Here they were seeing and hearing a man of intellectual and accomplished career standing stature, a vet, former FBI man and the head legal authority of a well known American city,  eloquently telling them that their own government on the highest levels might very possibly be lying to them about the murder of their own president!

I think many Americans hearing Jim Garrison that night were numb with shock and even somewhat shaken, after being presented with such a new and different paradigm of perception ( using the fairy tale analogy  ) that the reality around them in so many important ways, might not be real.

Like tearing down the big show curtain in the Wizard Of Oz...to reveal the great and powerful OZ as just a man - a little man at that.  Someone who has been manipulating them with scary pyrotechnics and fake booming voice authority.

Garrison was better spoken than any other national figure at the time. He really effected people who saw and heard him speak and truly effected the national public consciousness.

I believe that the majority of Americans who heard Jim Garrison speak began to trust him more than anyone else in our highest level government and media. Like me, they sensed this honesty and true patriotic concern sincerity about him.

I think the polls showing a majority of Americans disbelieving the Warren Report for decades were a direct result of Garrison's public efforts ( and of course many top JFK researchers and writers as well.) 

Ah, I see.

Quite informative.

Thank you PS.

22 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether it's possible that CE399 could have been the bullet that caused JFK's rear back wound and really did fall out vs. being planted on the stretcher?

MW, since there was reportedly evidence that a bullet tore some of JFK'S necktie fabric or some other part of his clothing caused by it's passing through this ( therefore not being left in JFK's body or even his frontal clothing ) are you inferring a falling out of this same bullet ( CE399 ) from Connally's body or clothing? 

My question regards this thread is whether the first person who noticed and picked up CE399 mentioned seeing any red blood or other tissue on it. And if not, and CE399 was so clean looking with no flesh and blood residue..whether this clean condition is more normal than not regards body piercing bullets just 1 hour after their damage?

Knowing nothing about forensics I too have wondered whether a bullet that has passed through two human bodies and inflicting significant injuries wouldn't have had at least "some" traces of blood and/or tissue on it's surface after being found within the time frame stated regards the discovery of CE399?

Do fired rifle bullets come out of flesh and blood bodies clean like CE399?

One might suppose that they do or that certain post hit - physical contact factors could possibly clean such traces away such as the expended bullet going through thick cotton, sandy soil, water, etc.

Perhaps the physical handling of a bullet like CE399 after it's discovery could also do this? 

Was the person credited with CE399's first discovery at Parkland ever asked whether they noticed any blood on the bullet when they first picked it up? Or did they say that the bullet they found looked exactly as it appeared in later photo's shown to them?

On 10/28/2017 at 4:14 PM, Michael Clark said:

Six questions:

1. Does it look like him?

2. Is there evidence that it is him?

3. Is there some reason that it cannot be him?

4. Is it plausibly him?

5. Is there some reason that it makes it likely that it is him?

6. Do you think it's him?

 

My answers:

1. Yes

2. No

3. None that I know of.

4. Yes

5. i don't know enough

6. Yes

My answers:

1. Yes and no.

Raphael Cruz Sr.'s nose in recent pictures shows a pronounced bridge from the brow on down and the nose seems longer than the Oswald helper. The bridge of the nose of the helper seems less pronounced and recesses in below the forehead brow. The helper's nose doesn't seem as long as recent Raphael Cruz photos although noses can elongate and widen as one gets older.

The brow and forehead of both men do seem similar in shape and slope.

Both faces somewhat thin shaped in width with similar slightly wider width of forehead.

Both jaws and chin shape somewhat similar.

Ears seem somewhat similar in shape ( older Cruz Sr.'s are larger )  and are located similarly. 

The Oswald pamphlet helper looks to be close to Oswald's 24 year old age and Cruz was born in 1939 as Oswald was.

The 2016 photo in Doug's link shows Cruz Sr. walking side-by-side with Cruz Jr. and Cruz Jr. clearly looks to be at least one inch taller than his father.

I just Googled Cruz Jr's height and the first answer shown was "5 ft. 10 in. ." The 1963 photo Oswald helper man looks no taller than the height of Oswald ( 5 ft. 9 in. to 5 ft. 10 in. ) as Raphael Cruz Sr. was and still is.

The skin color and tone and hair color ( white Cuban ) match. Hair line on sides of forehead close.

2. No.

3. None that I know of and we do know that Cruz Sr. lived in New Orleans at the same time of Oswald's pamphlet activities.

4. Not impossible.

5. Just as M. Clark says...not enough to go on.

6.  Wouldn't be shocked if it was proven to be RC Sr. 

The fact that politically active ( and suspiciously connected or sponsored upon arriving from Cuba ) 24 year old Cruz Sr. was living in hot-headed Cuban political intrigue central New Orleans at the very same time as politically active and publicly known pro-Castro Oswald, does logically and fair-mindedly compel one to at least wonder whether Cruz Sr. knew Carlos Bringuier and knew of Oswald and the widely reported brawl between them.

I am sure that Raphael Cruz Sr. will never sit down for an interview where he is asked questions about his time in New Orleans and especially the questions I stated regards Carlos Bringuier and Oswald and if he quit any Cuban/Castro political activity and interest while there versus Austin, and if so, why?

If he has nothing to hide about this subject and time period and he likes to talk about his daring do past anyway and likes to get paid for speaking, , why not? 

10 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

If its really Harvey in the operating room, then that answers a lot of questions ... and it seems somebody like him was observed by the doctors

Regarding the hierarchy of players (CIA vs. JCS), I note that the Defense Intelligence Agency was already in place (since 1961) and - unlike CIA - can operate more freely on American soil than CIA (theoretically) and spans all of the armed services.  Both agencies today are roughly the same size (if you can believe public estimates) with CIA at around 22,000 employees and DIA at 17,000 employees.  There have been overtures made about DIA Director Lieutenant General Joseph Carroll, USAF, who played a part in the Cuban missile crisis.

If the bad guys behind the scenes were affiliated with DIA (not sure of their composition and role in 1963), then the question of military versus CIA becomes moot.

We have so many abbreviated letters secret intelligence and surveillance groups now, who can keep track?  They must be constantly bumping into each other.

And with Homeland Security, this massively expanded industry of secret surveillance agencies must employ millions of people!

It's on every level.  Federal, state, county, city.

A local transit bus driver told me a few years ago that some of the so-called rough looking derelict types that hang out at our main city transit centers ( our city population is only 30,000 ) were actually undercover surveillance police officers. Part of a secret group.

Donald Rumsfeld said on Sept. 10th, 2001..."We cannot track 2.3 trillion in Pentagon transactions.'

With all these black budget and secret agency demands, what would one expect? 

What kind of society have we allowed ourselves to become?

We spend TRILLIONS on secret agenda, self watching doings while at the same time we have fallen so far down world lists in areas of education, health care, "real" job creation ( not Wal-Mart, gas station and fast food jobs ) infrastructure, drug abuse and addiction, homelessness, transportation, energy reformation, etc, etc, etc..

What a quality of life sacrificing price we have paid to build and maintain such a massive "security" and surveillance machine.

Like a father spending so much of his income and family budget on family security and turning his home into a highly secured fortress ( with spy cams even watching his own family members ) that his wife and kids have to do without or get by with second rate basics just to keep up and maintain that huge main priority expense.

Sorry for the straying from our JFK theme, but I believe such things we see like this today in our daily lives personally and society in general are actually connected in many ways to his removal 54 years ago. 

7 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

this memo has been established as a fake. Bogus.

Excuse my neophyte ignorance, but if the document above is bogus, was it revealed as bogus quickly, easily and long ago?

Who discovered it as such and what are the speculations regards it's origins and agenda?

Just curious.

On 10/20/2017 at 12:21 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

So they're overcompensating now. I've heard they've hired a total of 4000 people this year to go through posts.

Doug, i wonder if you're given a forum or you intend to ask them what specifically is their issue with what you've written.

It makes me wonder if they're actually doing this to try to make a statement about how difficult what they're being asked to do is.

Kirk, even Craigslist has post watchers and censors!

Just to fill time sometimes I go to the forums there. It's a very small venue with mostly very uneducated posters who use lots of profanity. I seriously think many posters are junior high school kids. More and more I don't even post there.

However their "World" and "USA" political forums do have much more posting activity.

I have no problem with my posts appearing within seconds of submission...however, I wrote something to post on their USA political forum ( with absolutely no profanities ) about George H W Bush and his reported touching of a woman's backside and telling her and other women a crude joke about David Copperfield ( "Copafeel" in the joke ) and that post would never go through on their site. I tried 20 times to submit it...and it wouldn't appear. You could tell that some on-line censor was blocking it.

I hope the cable news networks like MSNBC and the main internet news sites like AOL report this latest Roger Stone story.

An inner circle member of the Trump team loses emotional control to a disturbing degree which results in his banishment from one of our main internet social sharing sites. 

Birds of a feather?

Sandy, the further testimony by Helms in response to Belin's Oswald/CIA questions on the pages following the one you cited from the Mary Ferrell site is what is truly worthy of serious scrutiny, suspicion and concern.

Just one example:

In response to Belin's questions regarding Oswald and any contact with the CIA he may have had Helms actually says:

"Whether any CIA officer ever talked to him (Oswald ) any place I do not know."

We all know what that statement honestly admits.

There really isn't any documentation or even commentary regards Raphael Cruz Sr.'s time in New Orleans.

I've tried to find information ( besides Wiki ) from R. Cruz Sr. himself or others that mentions his time in N.O.. So far, there seems to be a black hole there and a blackout from Cruz. Sr. himself.

We do know Cruz was living in New Orleans when Oswald was doing his thing.

We also know he seemed to be quite active politically in Austin just before he left for N.O giving speeches about his experience and views of the Castro revolution in Cuba where he says he was a tortured soldier.

But, it seems his Austin era political fervor and sharing just stopped once he went to N.O.

So here we have a politically active Castro hating, ex-patriot Cuban moving to one of the top two ovens of Castro hating Cuban political activism ( Miami was the other ) and he just goes dark?

Please, there is no way that Cruz Sr. didn't know something about Carlos Bringuier and what his people were up to and especially about the extremely widely covered confrontation downtown involving Oswald and Bringuier. That incident was published in the newspaper, broadcast on the radio and even reported on TV in New Orleans. Including the debate between Oswald and Bringuier.

Cruz. Sr. was the exact same age as Oswald by the way.

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To the best of my knowledge, that idea is not new.

It actually began at the thirtieth anniversary, if I recall by Walter Pincus, a well known CIA asset.

It evolved over time into a favored position by Shenon, and Sabato, and a couple of others.  The idea is that somehow the FBI via Hosty, and CIA had a lot of info on Oswald and he still seeped through the net, even though he had actually talked about killing JFK in advance.

The problem with that idea--and I don't for ten seconds think that Shenon and Sabato do not know this--is that the information they rely upon to proffer the concept is quite dubious and was very likely added after the fact.  I spent a lot of time going through this in my review of Shenon's godawful book, especially at the end where I consulted John Newman and Arnaldo Fernandez.  ( https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/shenon-philip-a-cruel-and-shocking-act) What Shenon did was to adapt the CIA's Brian Latell's ideas about Castro's involvement and then use every trick in the book to somehow make Silvia Duran into some kind of Castro agent, even though she wasn't even Cuban.  Even though Win Scott thought the source for this--the rightwing Elena Garro De Paz--was nuts.  Bill Kelly has done a nice job in decimating that whole De Paz twist story fairy tale with  formerly hidden testimony by actor Richard Beymer. Also, Eddie Lopez told me he regrets spending as much time as he did on her in the Lopez Report.

In my view, this is really an attempt to negate what the facts really indicate.  The reason the FBI and CIA had materials on LHO is because he was an FBI informant and a CIA agent provocateur.  To me, the evidence for this today is pretty much overwhelming.  Especially with the INS report presented by Bill Davy at his VMI talk last month.

 

To the best of my knowledge, that idea is not new.

It actually began at the thirtieth anniversary, if I recall by Walter Pincus, a well known CIA asset.

It evolved over time into a favored position by Shenon, and Sabato, and a couple of others.  The idea is that somehow the FBI via Hosty, and CIA had a lot of info on Oswald and he still seeped through the net, even though he had actually talked about killing JFK in advance.

Jim, this is exactly what Shenon said on NPR yesterday.