Bugliosi's Conspiracy Leads

[Gene Kelly]

If the community was so inflamed about JFK's lack of action against Castro, then why wasn't the same energy directed against LBJ (who sponsored far less in that regard)? I think this comparison speaks volumes about other motives, and participants, far different than simply anti-castro Cubans.

Bill, with all due respect, and please understand that I am not defending "Reclaiming History" but only responding to the faith that you put in Fabian Escalante, IMO you are wrong in your theory and Esclanate is a xxxx and may even have been involved in the assassination himself.

You quote Bugliosi as follows:

"I asked Kelly to estimate the likelihood that Castro, because of this infiltration, would know if any of the anti-Castro groups were behind the assassination. 'With the level of infiltration he had, I can say he would have known with almost 100 percent metaphysical certitude,' he responded. In fact, FBI headquarters said it believed that there were 'more than two hundred agents of Cuban G-2 in the Miami area, all targeted against the exile movement. We know that when it was learned after the assassination that Oswald had a reverence for Castro and his revolution and even had a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New Orleans, much suspicion focused on Castro's possible involvement in the assassination. To a much lesser degree, that suspicion continues to this very day. As the HSCA said, if Castro learned that anti-Castro groups had killed Kennedy, he 'would have had the highest incentive to report' this to American authorities 'since it would have dispelled suspicions' of his involvement in the assassination. Yet no such information ever came from Castro, information he would have undoubtedly have possessed if, indeed, anti-Castro Cuban exiles had been behind Kennedy's assassination."

You then point out what Escalante has written about the assassination in his book.

Now, don't you suppose Kelly was talking about Castro's government making a contemporaneous report to American authorities if his intelligence organization had information that anti-Castro Cubans had killed JFK? Not only would such a contemporaneous report have absolved Castro (history would absolve him) think what might have happened to U.S. Cuban relations had Cuba helped solve the murder (and bring to justice) the murderers of the beloved US President? And Castro would have had another motive to help solve the assassination if his intelligence agency had information that anti-Castro Cubans did it. Not only would he have cleared any suspicions about Cuba and brought credit to himself, but had anti-Castro exiles been convicted of the assassination it would probably have broken the anti-Castro exile movement in the United States.

Escalante in his book (whether true or false) is referring to a post-assassination investigation conducted by G2. I doubt whether Escalante is admitting that G2 had pre-assassination knowledge that JFK was going to be "hit" by anti-Castro exiles. But it was Kelly's point that G2 had so infiltrated the anti-Castro organizations that it would have had pre-assassination knowledge. To attempt to put Kelly's logic into syllogistic form, I think it would be as follows:

PREMISE 1: G2 had so infiltrated the anti-Castro exile movement that it would have learned of any planned assassination plot.

PREMISE 2: Cuba had great incentives to reveal any such knowledge to America after the assassination when Cuba was a suspect.

PREMISE 3: Cuba never contemporaneously communicated any such knowledge.

CONCLUSION: There was no anti-Castro exile involvement in the assassination.

Now I think there may be ways to counter Kelly's argument, adopted by Bugliosi. For instance, what is the probability that Premise 1 is correct? Probably less than 50% if there was a small group of anti-Castro exiles involved in a plot. Even if one assumes the probability of Premise 1 being as high as 90%, I think Kelly's point (adopted by Bugliosi) is flawed. At a high probability level, the premise might be able to demonstrate a great unlikelihood of anti-Castro involvement, but it could not EXCLUDE such involvement as a historical fact (as Bugliosi attempts to do).

Same argument with respect to Premise 2. I think the likelihood of Premise 2 is indeed quite high but even if we assume that Premise 1 is 100% true and Premise 2 is 90% true, the argument STILL cannot be used to exclude anti-Castro involvement.

PREMISE 3 I assume is a given.

CONCLUSION. As noted above, the conclusion must fail if there is almost any possibility that EITHER Premise 1 or Premise 2 is wrong.

There is yet another problem with the reasoning. Had G2 been aware of a planned assassination before Dallas, but Cuba had only communicated it AFTER JFK's murder, I think there would be Kennedy's blood on G2's hands (just as I think there is JFK's blood on Howard Hunt's hands if, as he now claims, he had pre-assassination knowledge of a planned assassination because he did not report it and stop it).

I think Kelly's point would have been far more effective had he argued that Cuba would have had great incentive to report any knowledge of a planned assassination BEFORE the fact and PREVENT it. Even think about the effect on JFK had Castro saved his life! And think about the effect it would have had on public's attitude toward on the anti-Casto organizations.

Is it possible that anti-Castro Cubans planned JFK's murder and G2 was aware of it but took no steps to stop it because Castro would have liked to see it happen? In other words, that Castro would have considered that he gained a greater benefit by sitting on the knowledge and letting it happen than by stopping it. I could see that happening. I could even see G2 encouraging anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK.

Re Escalante's book. Let's assume G2 only discovered knowledge of anti-Castro involvement in the assassination years after the fact. Why the heck would Castro not have revealed that to the HSCA when it interviewed him in 1978?

The only way Escalante's claims make sense, IMO, is if the G2 only discovered the involvement of anti-Castro Cubans in the plot sometime AFTER the 1978 HSCA interview with Castro.

But the claims made in Escalante's book are bogus. As I said before, Communists have no morality. They will lie whenever it suits their purpose. It does not mean that every factual assertion made by a Communist is a lie. It simply means that one must consider that a Communist will lie without any moral concern whenever it suits his or her opinion.

Finally, a comment about Escalante's assertion re Cuesta's alleged "confession". I have discussed this several times with Gordon Winslow who was there and listened to Escalante. Escalante claimed Cuesta had made a WRITTEN confession. Gordon asked Escalante to produce it and Escalante stonewalled him. Now think about this. Cuesta was BLIND. What proof is there in a statement signed by a man who cannot read what he is signing? If Cuesta was really going to confess and sign a statement of confession, why would Escalante or G2 get a tape-recorded confession from Cuesta? Escalante lied about Custa's alleged confession because it would not have been written it would have been recorded--and Escalante has NEVER (to my knowledge anyway) produced even a copy of an alleged written confession to anyone.

Think about it. What if I claimed that I had interviewed someone before his death and he had given me a WRITTEN CONFESSION and I went on to write a book about the assassination but never included a copy of the written confession? How credible is that?

The fact that Escalante lied about Cuesta leads me to conclude that every statement he made about anti-Castro exile involvement in the assassination is a damn lie! As the old legal maxim goes" "Falsus in uno . . ."

Bill, if you want to try to demonstrate anti-Castro involvement in the plot, you'll need more than the unsupported claims of a demonstrable xxxx! (Who himself may even BE a suspect!)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for reading my post and your analysis.

While anything Escalante uncovered or says can't be used in court against any suspects, and he certainly has motive to lie, my point is that Bugliosi concludes that the Cuban G2 penetration of anti-Castro Cuban operations in USA would have provided them with info on assassination plots against Castro or JFK. Then he doesn't bother to go there to see what information is even available.

Whether you belive Escalante or not, the Cubans did come up with more info on the anti-Castro Cuban organizations than the FBI did (at least they spoke Spanish), and they claim that they can identify those suspects who were invovled in the anti-Castro plots that were turned on JFK. And those suspects are the same as ours - Morales, Phillips, Roselli, et al.

Nor do I trust Gordon Winslow any more than I do Fabian Escalante, as Gordon's postion of Archivist of the City of Miami, puts him in the center of the action. The city's municipal building is at the marina where Gordon Campbell kept his boat.

While I was an early participant in Gordon's Research Directory, which tried to network those interested in similar subjects, it also tipped our hands as to what we were working on.

While his website is a weath of great information, including partial transcripts of the COPA-Cuban conferences, Gordon and the Miami Cubans are not independent researchers, but like Peter Pavia, have an axe to grind against JFK.

As Pavia notes in his book, "The most hated man in Miami remains Fidel Castro, but he is followed closely by John F. Kennedy. Kennedy might not have been half the man, or the president, that his hagiographers would like the world to think he was; neither was he the evil traitor who turned his back on the Cuban cause...Operation Moongoose,...from the first, (was) going to include direct U.S. military involvement, but then Kennedy was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson abandoned the plan in 1964."

When the Cubans realized that JFK had no intention of using the US military to invade Cuba, and was actively conducting back channel negotiations with Castro via the UN, they pulled triggers of the guns that killed JFK.

I don't believe the anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK on their own, but they were entwined with and followed the orders and well laid plans of the CIA officers at JM/WAVE (and the mob, via Roselli), and since it was a coup, not just a conspiracy, every significant aspect of the government was covered or neutralized - cabinet, SS, military, etc.

There are two ways to solve the JFK assassination - through a normal law enforcement investigation that develops evidence to be used in court, or through a counter-intelligence CI investigation that also uses illegal sources and information that can't be used in court. The Cubans used the later, as did the USMC investigation, but we must use the former if we want to more than just satisfy our knowlege and counter the coup that remains in power.

BK

[Charles Drago]

If the community was so inflamed about JFK's lack of action against Castro, then why wasn't the same energy directed against LBJ (who sponsored far less in that regard)? I think this comparison speaks volumes about other motives, and participants, far different than simply anti-castro Cubans.

[

Agreed, Mr. Kelly, in a most hearty fashion.

Charles

[Larry Hancock]

I'm certainly not going to argue that the "instigators/plotters" had their own motives and agenda - since I think they

did.

But just in terms of the comparison between JFK and LBJ in regard to Cuba, the big difference for the exiles

who were being manipulated by the plotters was that they were told (and we know it to be true) that JFK

was conducting back channel negotiations with Castro and they an accomodation was going to happen which

would lead to the Russians being booted out and some sort of long term recognition of Fidel's position. We know

talks were beginning and it was probably easy to sell that story to people who already felt JFK had betrayed them

twice already.

If nothing else Johnson was not about to immediately sell them out. And actually we know now that he did indeed

totally rebuff Castro even to the extent of ignoring an offer from Fidel that Castro would tolerate some sort of

action against Cuba which would have ensured Johnson's election. Johnson didn't even reply. Of course he did

not support the RFK initiatives againt Fidel either but then again Johnson would not touch anything RFK ever was

associated with - no big surprise there.

In any event, certainly there was a major difference between the two in the fall of 63; JFK could be presented as

an imminent threat to certain exiles not involved in RFK's projects while Johnson was seen as no threat and possibly

a supporter...after all he was a Texan and the exiles had a lot of Texas support.

-- Larry

[Gene Kelly]

Larry:

I finished your book this past month... just superb reading, excellent story flow, great factual confirmation. Kudos to you. It really puts 20+ years of diverse reading and stories in clear focus for me personally. I particularly liked your recommendations for future research... things that can and should be further investigated to sharpen the picture. The 'circle' of JM/WAVE alumni certainly are at the eye of the hurricane. I'd personally like to see more development of Harvey's role, since (after reading Norman Mailer's Harlots Ghost) I'm locked in on his complicity... and the lack of pictures, detailed information and anechdotes in general makes him all the more suspicious. His close associations with Morales, Roselli and Robertson make him hard to ignore. Plus, all of them spend the next several years well out of the country. Book him, Larry (pun intended).

Regarding the radical exiles relationships with JFK and LBJ, I agree the back-channel episode was precipitous, as well as a significant difference in those two administrations. But there were the machinations that RFK was involved in that surely could've tempered their harsh views... looking ahead, level minds could've seen that LBJ was no less inclined to accomodate Castro. And history showed that he did far less than Kennedy in that regard. Maybe the great equalizer then became Viet Nam... where all of the JM WAVE principals quickly transitioned to. But what's missing for me is how the virulent anti-C exiles passions became dissipated...and why they didn't go after LBJ for similar reasons. Puzzling.

That's where I think the larger conspirators and participants come into play/focus... somebody got what they wanted, and everyone apparently then backed off. Now the exiles fade out of the picture, the kill Castro plots fizzle - as the poet says, not with a bang but a wimper. Perhaps pure revenge for BOP was that this was...nothing more. Mobsters (and their CIA cowboy handlers) esentially get Bobby off their backs. But no chance for casino business in Havana... and pragmatic realization that invasion of Cuba is never going to happen. So the next level of manipulation in this conspiracy - just as Mexican/Cubans used Oswald - was the use of the exiles by the larger conspirators. And those folks all subsequently died coincidentally just before/after their HSCA interviews.

Regards and great book -- gene kelly

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Gene, I certainly appreciate the kind words on Someone Would Have Talked.

A couple of more observations on your points:

"But what's missing for me is how the virulent anti-C exiles passions became dissipated...and why they didn't go after LBJ for similar reasons. Puzzling.

That's where I think the larger conspirators and participants come into play/focus... somebody got what they wanted, and everyone apparently then backed off. Now the exiles fade out of the picture, the kill Castro plots fizzle - as the poet says, not with a bang but a wimper."

..... Larry...

I think there were a number of things at work here. First off, Johnson did personally intervene and shut off certain exile officers who had been expecting

to deploy shortly to Cuba, that is a matter of record. He forced RFK to call some things off and that is on record too. However, beyond those personal

contacts the folks who had been working with Artime and even the AMWORLD project were allowed to go their own way for a couple of years...much

of the action was transferred to Spain (where Hunt transferred for a time). Reading the Miami papers you might have gotten the impression there was

still a lot of active anti-Castro action. But in a couple of years, after the Gulf of Tonkin nonsense, we had gotten ourselves so stuck in SE Asia that

it appeared that was the front line against more countries falling and a lot of the exiles went along with the JMWAVE folks that transferred over there.

Johnson might have backed off Cuba but he still looked like a first class anti-Communist hawk - he didn't even suggest compromise or rationality as

JFK had so his credentials stayed good....no backing down to the Commies for him. Look out the US military engagement in the DR.

But....by the late 60's and 70's the hard core exiles really had not faded out of the picture, they were simply operating off shore...in Latin America

with cover by people like Phillips....that's where you find Veciana....and of course Hecksher and eventually Morales etc. And you have a whole second

generation set of bombings, assassination attempts on Castro and the creation of Condor and the death squads. It's not that the hard core gave up at all,

they just moved, used their old CIA covers and networks and began financing operations through selling their military skills and supporting the guys who

took over the new and exploding drug trade moving though the south. Guess who took over the drug trade through Mexico after Corsicans got busted up -

the lead guy was an exile who had trained at Fort Jackson.

So...don't think they gave up....they had a lot more initiative than that. They just got smarter and saw the flaw in trying to work directly

with the official side of the agency....although they kept networked to the few folks they did trust...like Morales.

-- Larry

[Gene Kelly]

Thanks Larry... that portrayal of LBJ's policy makes logical sense to me. Part of my 'strategy' for understanding the President's murder has always been to closely study the published history before and after. The world affairs are unmistakable pointers --IMHO-- to the plotters and motives. For Americans, that's The Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis followed closely by Viet Nam... kind of the "bookends" spanning the 25 year period before and after dealey Plaza. And then nicely capped off/ended with the forever popular Watergate... all connected in a tragic fashion.

The five years after 1963 (i.e. LBJ's tenure) do seem wholly uneventful with respect to Cuba. JM WAVE eventually gave up (trying to get Castro), and moved the players to SE Asia and Latin America to fight communism on other fronts. So, if the passionate anti-castro exiles were so inflamed about a proposed detente with Cuba -- inflamed enough to murder JFK -- how could they be appeased with shifting that passion to other places? This implies that regaining the homeland (Cuba) and ousting Castro were not really at the root of their needs. Could the unofficial CIA players really control them that easily... drugs, money, other fronts? How did Phillips keep them happy and focused... did we continue to preach/promise that Castro would be removed?

A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved. The true drivers (the ones who manipultaed the manipulators) didn't really want an invasion, nor did the dark-skinned Mexican exiles want one either. And when it didn't happen in the next 5 years, nobody really cared that much. Its as though the ouster of Castro became suddenly uninteresting, and has remained so for 40+ years.

So, it was those principals who shipped out to Spain, Rome, Laos and Latin America... there's your killers. Hunt, Harvey, Morales and Phillips.

-- gene

[Larry Hancock]

Gene, that would be my conclusion as well:

"A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved"

The guys pulling the strings really wanted a) JFK dead RFK neutralized on virtually all his tracks at Justice and c) no serious oversight/interference with their

covert political/power agendas. There may well have been some active double crossing going on as well. I have reason to think that some of

the tactical people including those in peripheral roles such as Martino eventually began to realize that all was not as they had been led to belive.

Indeed this may be the reason for some deaths (Roselli comes to mind) and people like Morales more concerned about the people he had worked

with than his old enemies (as he remarked to Reuben). If you go into some depth on Johnson's mental condition there is also a great deal of evidence

that he suffered from escalating paranoia and may have developed a serious guilt complex.

"Could the unofficial CIA players really control them that easily... drugs, money, other fronts? How did Phillips keep them happy and focused... did we continue to preach/promise that Castro would be removed?"

Not sure it was that clear cut, the clique driving the project did continue its own anti-Communist war from SE Asia to Latin America. And in may cases

they fed the line that they were simply establishing networks capable of supporting a new Cuban initiative. Or that one day a new President would

come along who would reinvigorate the Castro battle (Hunt lined up a considerable exile force with that line). And Veciana never really turned on

Phillips totally. The clique managed to give a lot of the radical exiles cover for a very long time...one can argue that that cover is still going on

today (Posada is an example). ...and nobody is ever going to show us that set of real sekeletons in the closet.

Also, there may be a couple of names left off your list....including the eventual COS in Chile...an old time partner with Morales, Phillips and Hunt and

significant player in the anti-Allende campaign.

-- Larry

[Cliff Varnell]

Gene, that would be my conclusion as well:

"A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved"

Larry, having just finished reading Talbot's Brothers I'd have to speculate that,

had Oswald been gunned down at the corner of 10th and Patton on 11/22/63,

Minnie and Mickey would be knocking back virgin Cuba Libres at the Havana

Disneyland as we speak.

LeMay, Helms and Hoover sure wanted an invasion, and its hard for me

to imagine how they would have been stopped if Hoover had had a chance

to make his bogus case against Fidel.

Brothers reads to me like the 3rd book in a trilogy, in a manner

of speaking.

The first two books:

The Last Investigation and Someone Would Have Talked

Larry-- you, Fonzi and Talbot are like 3 blind men describing a snake.

Know whattamean?

Keep up the great great work.

[Tim Gratz]

Sorry, Hoover never attempted to make a case linking Oswald to Cuba.

As I understand it both the CIA and the FBI in Mexico City received orders from DC not to investigate any possible conspiracy, and at least some of the people in Mexico City who received those orders were livid about them.

The last thing the "powers-that-be" wanted was evidence of a conspiracy that might lead to a nuclear war.

Whether or not he had anything to do with it, no doubt LBJ reaped benefits from the death of JFK. No doubt LBJ thought he would be a greater president than JFK kad been. His personal purpose was served by the death of JFK. And whether he seriously regretted the death or helped plan it, either way LBJ did not want to start his administration with a war.

IF--and I say it is a very very big "IF", some of the conspirators thought the death of JFK would lead to an invasion of Cuba, they had no idea where LBJ was coming from. One of the reasons I doubt that was a motive for the assassination.

[Charles Drago]

To the prime movers of the JFK murder, Castro is vastly more valuable alive and in power than dead and gone.

My choice of tense in the previous sentence is correct.

Even today.

As a justification for Cold War excesses, a cash and recruiting magnet for conservative political interests and the secret war's sapper squads, and a false sponsor/patsy-in-waiting for any number of atrocities originating closer to home and around the globe, nothing in this hemisphere surpasses the Bearded Bogey-Man just 90 miles from Collins Avenue.

And "The Understudy" (interesting title for a bio, don't you think) Hugo Chavez is waiting in the wings.

Yes, what I'm suggesting is that the previously referenced "prime movers" manipulated their underlings -- up to and including certain flag rank military officers and civilian powerhouses -- with a promise to patsy and remove Fidel that in fact they never had the slightest intention to keep.

War = profits = power.

Destroy the enemies and the war is over.

Who the hell wants that?

Relax, Osama. Your understudy Iran is still in make-up.

Charles

[Larry Hancock]

Given the thread title and Cliff's remarks (thanks Cliff, yes I know what you mean, and I think the imge of

a snake is a lot better than an elephant for this one) I think its interesting that the Amazon war of reviews is

beginning to wash over even to Someone Would Have Talked. The following is an Amazon review from yesterday

and may be driven by the fact that Brothers and SWHT show up when you take a look at Reclaiming History.

.....Amazon review of SWHT....

"This book is a reasonable contribution to the ongoing and probably never ending debate. I say reasonable in that it is at least well written and organized - unlike so many on the subject. But does it make sense - no, not in a million years.

I am therefore at odds with most of the other reviewers here. The degree of knowledge shared within the "JFK assassination community" is extremely high and is evident on Amazon and other web based forums. However it never ceases to amaze me how often books like this receive such good reviews by people who clearly have such a high degree of knowledge on the subject. How on earth can you believe Larry Hancock's conclusions. You cannot.

Most of the authors presentation of "what actually happened" is pure conjecture and this book joins that long list of pro conspiracy none sense that I like many others no doubt have hidden away or on shelves - depending perhaps on your view point. Forget the grassy knoll and the man with the seizure and all those other HUGE red herrings. All the shots were fired from above and behind and yet - and yet - this author like so many just ignores the overwhelming evidence against Oswald. Take for example the quantum leap of a theory that the gun barrel that was seen pointing out of the TSBD sixth floor window was merely a device for framing Oswald and that other shooters were positioned around Dealey Plaza. Why oh why would you shoot from the front and have your patsy to the rear. And why did Oswald shoot Tippet if he were not at all involved ? The list of questions goes on and on. The books conclusions are utter non sense and I suspect the author knows it deep down.

Vincent Bugliosi has written a far more believable book. By both and make up your own mind."

....and just in case anyone was curious, what I know deep down is that these folks need to 1) Read Gerald McKnights book Breach of Trust first, to fully understand the house of cards that underlies the evidence they cite and which Vince B. uses 2) Get to know Doug Horne and Gaeton Fonzi to evaluate the sort of judgements that Vince B. uses in evaluating serious researchers -- and then take the reviewers advice, read SWHT and Reclaiming History and make an informed judgement on what to belive.

-- Larry

[Cliff Varnell]

Sorry, Hoover never attempted to make a case linking Oswald to Cuba.

Sure he did.

From David Talbot's Brothers, pg 10, emphasis added:

(quote on)

...(I)t's important to note that [bobby] Kennedy apparently never jumped

to the conclusion that afternoon that Fidel Castro -- the target of so much

U.S. intrigue -- was behind his brother's killing. It was the anti-Castro

camp where Bobby's suspicions immediately flew, not pro-Castro agents.

...Bobby came to this conclusion despite the energetic efforts of the CIA

and the FBI, which almost immediately after the assassination began

trying to pin the blame on Castro's government. Hoover himself

phoned Kennedy again around four that afternoon to inform him that

Oswald had shuttled in and out of Cuba, which was untrue...[T]he

FBI chief failed to convince Bobby that the alleged assassin was a

Castro agent.

(quote off)

The Oswald-as-Castro-agent scenario was headed off at the pass

around 7 o'clock DC time, when who should meet the new President

within minutes of his arrival at the White House?...W. Averell Harriman.

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

(quote off)

Wow. That's some crack investigative team -- "the U.S. government's top

Kremlinologists."

It took them about 5 hours to get to the bottom of this crime -- at least to

the point they could unanimously exclude the Russians as suspects.

Maybe "the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists" should have been handed

the case instead of the FBI!

Seriously folks, W. Averell Harriman was calling the shots in American foreign

policy in November, 1963.

Here's John F. Kennedy describing on tape (11/4/63) the overthrow of Diem

in Vietnam on 11/1/63:

(quote on, emphasis added)

President Kennedy: Opposed to the coup was General [Maxwell] Taylor, the

Attorney General [Robert Kennedy], Secretary [Robert] McNamara to a somewhat

lesser degree, John McCone, partly based on an old hostility to [Henry Cabot] Lodge

[Jr.] which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgment, partly as a result

of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his [CIA] station chief; in favor of the

coup was State, led by Averell Harriman,George Ball, Roger Hilsman, supported

by Mike Forrestal at the White House.

(quote off)

Harriman over-ruled Bobby on the Diem coup.

By November of 1963 Harriman was getting his way in SE Asia (and Cuba.)

As Debra Conway highlights in her 2005 NID Conference presentation,

Harriman's foreign policy agenda was often separate from JFK's.

http://jfklancer.com/dallas05/ppt/conway/versions.ppt.htm

From Brothers, pg 217:

(quote on)

The Pentagon and CIA were taking secret steps to sabotage his [Vietnam]

troop withdrawl plan. And even trusted advisors like Harriman, the

Moscow-friendly globe-trotting tycoon whom Kennedy thought he could

rely on to broker a deal on Vietnam, were brazenly undercutting his peace

initiatives.

(quote off)

By instructing Lyndon Johnson as to the innocence of the Soviets,

Harriman was effectively cutting the legs out from underneath the

Castro-did-it scenario.

The plotters knew that a finger needed to be pointed at the Soviets in

order to keep them off-balance at the U.N. in the initial days after the

assassination. That's why such an extraordinary effort was made to link

Oswald to Valery Kostikov, the KGB assassins-bureau official (allegedly)

at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.

James Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 87: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of

Defense Robert McNamara, April 10, 1962:

(quote on, emphasis added)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved

in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in

overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal

uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures.

Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States

will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint

Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military

intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe

that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize

communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

The hawks were convinced they could strike Cuba and get away with it.

Tim Gratz:

As I understand it both the CIA and the FBI in Mexico City received orders

from DC not to investigate any possible conspiracy, and at least some of the

people in Mexico City who received those orders were livid about them.

The last thing the "powers-that-be" wanted was evidence of a conspiracy that

might lead to a nuclear war.

See above. The super-hawks thought they could move swiftly enough

to invade Cuba and hold the Soviets off at the UN with a pointed finger

of righteous suspicion.

Tim Gratz:

Whether or not he had anything to do with it, no doubt LBJ reaped benefits

from the death of JFK. No doubt LBJ thought he would be a greater president

than JFK kad been. His personal purpose was served by the death of JFK. And

whether he seriously regretted the death or helped plan it, either way LBJ did

not want to start his administration with a war.

If he had Hoover, Helms, LeMay and 100 editorial pages screaming bloody

murder over Castro killing Kennedy, Johnson would have gone along.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Gene Kelly]

Gene, that would be my conclusion as well:

"A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved"

The guys pulling the strings really wanted a) JFK dead RFK neutralized on virtually all his tracks at Justice and c) no serious oversight/interference with their

covert political/power agendas. There may well have been some active double crossing going on as well. I have reason to think that some of

the tactical people including those in peripheral roles such as Martino eventually began to realize that all was not as they had been led to belive.

Indeed this may be the reason for some deaths (Roselli comes to mind) and people like Morales more concerned about the people he had worked

with than his old enemies (as he remarked to Reuben). If you go into some depth on Johnson's mental condition there is also a great deal of evidence

that he suffered from escalating paranoia and may have developed a serious guilt complex.

"Could the unofficial CIA players really control them that easily... drugs, money, other fronts? How did Phillips keep them happy and focused... did we continue to preach/promise that Castro would be removed?"

Not sure it was that clear cut, the clique driving the project did continue its own anti-Communist war from SE Asia to Latin America. And in may cases

they fed the line that they were simply establishing networks capable of supporting a new Cuban initiative. Or that one day a new President would

come along who would reinvigorate the Castro battle (Hunt lined up a considerable exile force with that line). And Veciana never really turned on

Phillips totally. The clique managed to give a lot of the radical exiles cover for a very long time...one can argue that that cover is still going on

today (Posada is an example). ...and nobody is ever going to show us that set of real sekeletons in the closet.

Also, there may be a couple of names left off your list....including the eventual COS in Chile...an old time partner with Morales, Phillips and Hunt and

significant player in the anti-Allende campaign.

-- Larry

Larry: Would that be Hecksher?

[Larry Hancock]

That would indeed be Hecksher....the same fellow began his intelligence career with the Army, then the

OSS and went on to help start the CIA's Berlin station. But after PBSUCCESS he went on to ground his

career by becoming COS in Laos, working the trans border routes in the golden triangle and from there to

COS Japan...

-- Larry

quote name='Gene Kelly' date='Jul 6 2007, 07:38 PM' post='109117']

Gene, that would be my conclusion as well:

"A conclusion drawn from this picture is that the real 'drivers' for the murder were not the hard-line exiles who carried out the plot... they were manipulated in the same fashion that they used LHO. maybe they were surrepticiously eliminated. There was never going to be an invasion... no matter how the plot evolved"

The guys pulling the strings really wanted a) JFK dead RFK neutralized on virtually all his tracks at Justice and c) no serious oversight/interference with their

covert political/power agendas. There may well have been some active double crossing going on as well. I have reason to think that some of

the tactical people including those in peripheral roles such as Martino eventually began to realize that all was not as they had been led to belive.

Indeed this may be the reason for some deaths (Roselli comes to mind) and people like Morales more concerned about the people he had worked

with than his old enemies (as he remarked to Reuben). If you go into some depth on Johnson's mental condition there is also a great deal of evidence

that he suffered from escalating paranoia and may have developed a serious guilt complex.

"Could the unofficial CIA players really control them that easily... drugs, money, other fronts? How did Phillips keep them happy and focused... did we continue to preach/promise that Castro would be removed?"

Not sure it was that clear cut, the clique driving the project did continue its own anti-Communist war from SE Asia to Latin America. And in may cases

they fed the line that they were simply establishing networks capable of supporting a new Cuban initiative. Or that one day a new President would

come along who would reinvigorate the Castro battle (Hunt lined up a considerable exile force with that line). And Veciana never really turned on

Phillips totally. The clique managed to give a lot of the radical exiles cover for a very long time...one can argue that that cover is still going on

today (Posada is an example). ...and nobody is ever going to show us that set of real sekeletons in the closet.

Also, there may be a couple of names left off your list....including the eventual COS in Chile...an old time partner with Morales, Phillips and Hunt and

significant player in the anti-Allende campaign.

-- Larry

Larry: Would that be Hecksher?

[Pat Speer]

Most of the authors presentation of "what actually happened" is pure conjecture and this book joins that long list of pro conspiracy none sense that I like many others no doubt have hidden away or on shelves - depending perhaps on your view point. Forget the grassy knoll and the man with the seizure and all those other HUGE red herrings. All the shots were fired from above and behind and yet - and yet - this author like so many just ignores the overwhelming evidence against Oswald. Take for example the quantum leap of a theory that the gun barrel that was seen pointing out of the TSBD sixth floor window was merely a device for framing Oswald and that other shooters were positioned around Dealey Plaza. Why oh why would you shoot from the front and have your patsy to the rear. And why did Oswald shoot Tippet if he were not at all involved ? The list of questions goes on and on. The books conclusions are utter non sense and I suspect the author knows it deep down.

Vincent Bugliosi has written a far more believable book. By both and make up your own mind."

....and just in case anyone was curious, what I know deep down is that these folks need to 1) Read Gerald McKnights book Breach of Trust first, to fully understand the house of cards that underlies the evidence they cite and which Vince B. uses 2) Get to know Doug Horne and Gaeton Fonzi to evaluate the sort of judgements that Vince B. uses in evaluating serious researchers -- and then take the reviewers advice, read SWHT and Reclaiming History and make an informed judgement on what to belive.

-- Larry

Larry, I don't recall your ever mentioning a fake rifle in a window. I don't recall you discussing Dealey Plaza in much detail at all. (I still need to get the new version.) It's amazing what these guys will do to convince themselves all is well on the U.S.S. America. I had some guy on another forum criticize my webpage because all I did was show how the government lies. Like that was totally beside the point. He then said that my research was flawed because I don't say who pulled the trigger. A number of other LNs have criticized my work for being too technical. It's clear from these kinds of comments that a substantial percentage of Team LN just wants simple answers, and the simplest answer is some wacko named Oswald did it, Bugliosi proved it, case closed. This would be laughable if the MAJORITY of historians and member of the press didn't share this brain glitch. Frustrating as fark.