For several resons, I have been toying with the idea that Castro was not to be killed. He was needed to fill the role that he, indeed, did end-up filling for the following fifty years.

I can see this whole JVB thing playing-out in such a way that she and her cohorts believed that they were developing a method for killing Castro. It would ultimately not work, or the operation would get foiled, but, the Anti-Castro Cubans would believe that efforts were being made, and that the plan to Kill Castro was real.

JVB, LHO, Ferrie and others would believe that were developing a deadly plan. Oschner would know it was not a viable plan. Mary Sherman may have known or figured it out, and perhaps that is why she was murdered.

Similar to the Martina Lorenz "Poison pill dissolving in cold cream" story. That's just not a mistake I can see them making.

More info. Yesterday, when this started, when I clicked on the "Home" navigation button I would get to a screen with a lot of information in several paragraphs. One thing it said was something to the affect of : " if you are seeing this message, it means that the server is reachable, but the site is not configured"

also, I still often get the error message that I posted in the first post. Refreshing gets me to where I was trying to go.

I reported your post for you Sandy.

I am getting the following messages, and other errors, constantly, since a few hours ago.

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator at root@localhost to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Imagine, if you will, being Frank Sturigis.

 Yes, Imagine being that guy, in that photo that we should all be familiar with, posing on top of a mass grave of Batista supporters, who you just executed in cold blood, in suport of Fidel Castro.

It is human nature to justify what we have done. 

Fast-foreward to Castro's betrayal, thence to the BOPI, and thence to Watergate.

Frank is a durable man, his justifications are, probably, likewise, just as durable.

There are more, like him, around, and in, the JFKA, and Watergate; and thence through to today.

I think that a cold-blooded killer, sitting around my apartment, having a chat with police, after cold-blooded killer showed-up to kill me, and forced my 15 year-old daughter to get a gun.... might have already have have had its affect on my testimony. 

21 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Interesting account of Marita Lorenz' daughter of the Lorenz-Sturgis encounter back in the seventies. http://www.ticotimes.net/2015/10/27/costa-rica-spy-kid-my-mom-was-sent-to-kill-castro-and-my-dad-was-president-of-venezuela

KK

...

23 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Ron, That is the first Ruth Paine session in Vol. IX.

A very "clean" copy direct from the original WC volumes is here on this link (that I had provided above):

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43

 

 

 

I have  to admit that I meant clean and "free". 

I guess it's time to fork out some dough to the MFF,

6 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Chris, so this link is incorrect?

https://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol9/page331.php

Ruth testified Wednesday afternoon 3/18, Thursday 3/19 and Friday 3/20 in Washington, but Not on Saturday 3/21?  The next testimony was Monday evening 3/23 in Irving? 

I want a set of clean RP testimony as well. For the record, one of my Mcadams PDF's has this intro:

Douglas, Larry was referring to his CD of research materials available on lancer.

http://jfklancer.com/catalog/hancock/index.html

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I repeat...the CIVILIAN plot against JFK included at least two ROGUES from the CIA, namely, David Morales and Howard Hunt.

We know this because they confessed.

Frank Sturgis confessed, but he was not a CIA Officer.

Aside from these two CIA guys, I strongly suspect William Harvey, but nobody has proof, IMHO.

James Jesus Angelton has the excuse of the Simpich Mole Hunt.

David Atlee Phillips has a good alibi, IMHO.

Guy Banister was never in the CIA, though he probably convinced Lee Harvey Oswald that he was.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, I heard that Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins had a few beers one evening, and decided to secretly "go rogue" on Aplollo 11. So,..... NASA and the US really didn't land on the moon on the Apollo 11 mission.

Don't tell Evan, please.

Excellent Video. It would take a lot of time for me to get my head around a lot of this.

A couple takeaways, for me.

- @ 8:40 In 1963 there was a CIA Oswald program in place, to embarrass the FPCC. Newman didn't say so but I am assuming this would be McCord. If I could ask Newman a question I would ask him if that is so.

-All plans to assassinate Castro and Kennedy actually were meant to leave Castro alive

        - I did not understand why Newman says this is so, although it fits my working pet CT, which is that Far-right and industrial elements were not interested in a free independent Cuba, with a Mafia presence, and that a US Guantanamo bay facility could be more easily assured in an adversarial situation (boycott).

Does Newman explain why he believes the plotters wanted Castro alive? I missed it.

-Was it because the plotters wanted Vietnam, or simply hated Kennedy?

The above elements are intertwined, but I missed an explanation for this.

*****edit so I don't have to bump it

-He says the plot counted on Castro Being alive after the assassination of Kennedy

-He says the plot counted on Oswald being the assassin and Castro and the Soviet Union being behind the assassination.

-He says elsewhere (and briefly mentions it here) that it is the WW3 virus that prevents the invasion of Cuba.

-I am toying with the idea that Oswald being the lone assassin was never part of the plotters plans. Oswald was to be implicated in a conspiracy. It was not the WW3 virus that thwarted the invasion but the intentional failure of Dallas and Texas operatives to come up with, in deed to suppress, the evidence of conspiracy. The suppression of Mexico City/LHO indicates that someone with the ability to supress that evidence was in on the conspiracy suppression angle and was not part of the strictly local Dallas conspiracy suppression operation (guns, erestees and detainees, body disappearances). Who would that be? I don't really know right now but I don't think it was Hunt. It might have been Phillips. I will be looking to see if I can make sense of Phillips wanting-to and being capable of suppressing the MC evidence with very few, if any, helpers.

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

I don't read that article as saying that Frank Sturgis outranked Howard Hunt inside the CIA, but rather, that Frank Sturgis outranked Howard Hunt inside a CIVILIAN plot.

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, a CIVILIAN plot involving William Harvey, David Morales, Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt? Throw in David Phillips and Guy Bannster, whom you have implicated before. Where is this CIVILIAN plot of which you speak? And Hunt is a "flunkie"?  

2 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Detectives Rothstein and Rosenthal appear quite frequently in the past threads on Sturgis on this Forum.

Yes, post number 7, by Doug Caddy on this thread has a link to a good thread. Len Colby got deeply involved in debunking; that always raises red flags for me.

1 minute ago, David Andrews said:

One would think that Sturgis would be subordinate to Hunt, as in the past, and not empowered to make deals with a CIA officer.  An explanation is that Sturgis is now Morales's operative, and Morales left the room so that Sturgis could communicate the offer, giving Morales deniability.  Apparently alliances with Sturgis would have been fluid, and Sturgis would again be Hunt's soldier in the Watergate break-in period.

A more plausible explanation would be that this incident did not happen, or did not happen a s reported, and that Hunt went to work on the Dallas 1963 project under Dick Helms' authority.

Thanks David, I am not committed. I was just following Trejo's "Hunt is a flunkie" and the Sturgis invite angle. My working pet CT been assuming that the CIA, as an agency, didn't do it. Yet, Trejo, like he often does, steers the reader directly in the direction that he claims is incorrect (i.e. The CIA didit and the Saint-Ruthie ain't no saint)

On the other hand, my recent warming-up to the Watergate-Dallas identical DNA angle really warms up if one acepts Hunts Confession, deletes his innocence claim, and recognizes the Cord Meyer-LBJ angle as a hangout. Sorry for repeating myself, I am just developing, and clarifying this for myself.

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

 

I found a citation for Paul's claim..

 

From the Rolling Stone article: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-last-confession-of-e-howard-hunt-20070405

"In the next few paragraphs, E. Howard goes on to describe the extent of his own involvement. It revolves around a meeting he claims he attended, in 1963, with Morales and Sturgis. It takes place in a Miami hotel room. Here's what happens:

Morales leaves the room, at which point Sturgis makes reference to a "Big Event" and asks E. Howard, "Are you with us?"

E. Howard asks Sturgis what he's talking about. Sturgis says, "Killing JFK." E. Howard, "incredulous," says to Sturgis, "You seem to have everything you need. Why do you need me?" In the handwritten narrative, Sturgis' response is unclear, though what E. Howard says to Sturgis next isn't: He says he won't "get involved in anything involving 

Bill Harvey, who is an alcoholic psycho."

After that, the meeting ends. E. Howard goes back to his "normal" life and "like the rest of the country... is stunned by JFK's death and realizes how lucky he is not to have had a direct role." 

If one accepts this story, and I assume Trejo does accept it,( or perhaps he is just accepting the "Sturgis invitation" nugget) we have a CIA didit plot, including Sturgis, Maorales, Harvey, with Hunt on the sidelines. Since I don't believe the LBJ didit angle, I have to speculate where this story goes awry, and why.

If one sees it as a limited hangout (I am cherry picking) where does the story begin to mislead the reader, and why. The "why" would be to protect the living and to protect Hunt's compatriots. So who was living at the time of the confession, and who were the compatriots? 

I am seeing the diversion to Cord Meyer and LBJ as a means of leading away from (today and at the time of confession) living compatriots, Liddy and McCord. (Cord Meyer died in 2001).

All CIA: Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Morales, Harvey. Liddy was FBI, and I have a hard time seeing him not being CIA as well; in later years he appears as a well-fledged Mockingbird on Fox News.

Walker is no-where in sight, and Trejo leads us straight into a CIA didit plot.

*** Cord Meyer death date edited-in

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

................

H.L. Hunt (sic) on his deathbed confession to his son, admitted that Frank Sturgis invited him to the plot, just as he admitted he was "only on the sidelines" of that plot.

It was the same plot.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Evan,

It's far too early to ask.  There are more than 3,000 documents to examine, and their index lists more than 1,000 with DocID only-- no titles.

Also some are still only partially released, to be fully released only in October.

Newsweek was clearly hasty last week with it's cheap shot article on Nosenko.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

On 8/8/2017 at 3:52 AM, Evan Burton said:

As someone who does not follow the JFK debate nor have any great understanding of it, can I ask:

Was there anything in these new documents that people considered significant, important, etc?

Evan, The most interesting document I have seen so far is the document revealing that Earle Cabell, Dallas Mayor and brother of Deputy director of the CIA Charles Cabel, who was fired after the BOPI, was a CIA "agent".

Paul doesn't find this interesting because it undermines his pet theory.

I hadn't responded yet because I supposed others had better input on what has already been released. It looks like we can expect "nothing to see here" responses from Paul Trejo until all documents are released, and beyond.

8 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

According to the dictionary, an AGENT is a person who acts on behalf of another person or group.

That would make Frank Fiorini/Sturgis an AGENT of the CIA.

Using Trejo's Hegelian Dialectics one could identify Sturgs as a cupcake decorator.

What to make of this?

The only thing I can think of is that Trump has intel on an impending coup.

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie, 

The fact that none of the 57 JFK CT's mention Harry Dean is exactly the same reason that they have all FAILED in the past 50 years.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

DVP didit!

LOL!

5 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Buried in there somewhere was a "brag board" where he and like-minded-trolls would post and gloat over their forum "victories" (not just this forum). I'm not sure if that still exists but I may have screen caps from long ago. The whole thing seems kind of "weasel-like" to me.

Yup, he still does that. He should, as a courtesy, inform members when he does that.

Trejo thinks DVP is a genius.

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

Frank Sturgis was a Radical Right mercenary.  The CIA often exploited his type, but never hired them full time; they never had the "right stuff".

I mean, can you imagine Frank Sturgis doing paperwork?

Furthermore, Frank Sturgis was the only JFK plotter who openly boasted about it.  He was a glory hound -- not a team player.

Frank Sturgis was a hot head.  He fought alongside Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (and Interpen guys) in 1959 and was prized by Fidel for his fighting spirit.  Then he turned against Fidel and Che with an equal fighting spirit.  (In this sense Sturgis resembled Harry Dean.)

The people closest to Frank Sturgis were other hot heads like G. Gordon Liddy.

IMHO: the actor most fitting to portray Frank Sturgis in film would be a young Joe Pesci.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

6 hours ago,  Paul Trejo said: 

David,

Frank Sturgis was a Radical Right mercenary.  The CIA often exploited his type, but never hired them full time; they never had the "right stuff".

Frank Sturgis was a hot head.  He fought along side Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (and Interpen guys) in 1959 and was prized by Fidel for his fighting spirit.

The people most similar to Frank Sturgis would be hot heads like Gordon Liddy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Paul, I posted, above, your original post, from a few hours ago, along with the same post that you edited.......

 

for clarity

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

If (and only if) Frank Sturgis is a fabricator (as I think he is) then who can be surprised that he would describe himself as a CIA agent -- in order to justify his many misdeeds?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

LOl, I love Paul's "If (and only if)" statements. They are invariably absurd.

Paul, If Sturgis is not a fabricator, that is, he is telling the truth, then no one would be surprised that he would be saying this.

Thats exactly what Hunt did.

Paul Trejo, You have a gift for saying incrementally less (nothing at all) the more that you say.