Jump to content

Parallel lines


Guest Mark Valenti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mark Valenti

An enormous amount of information has been uncovered about clandestine activity surrounding Cuba in the early 60's.

I wonder if it's possible that this research is correct, historically accurate and had indeed been intentionally hidden by government agencies - but that it is largely divorced from the actual killing of JFK.

In other words, there seems to be no end to the frustration of researchers who studiously track down important information that sheds light on the CIA, exiles, etc. because they can only find tenuous, second-hand, indirect or absolutely zero linkage to Oswald.

Is it possible that these two vast and deep areas - LHO/JFK and all things Cuba - are running along parallel historical lines with only peripheral details in common?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An enormous amount of information has been uncovered about clandestine activity surrounding Cuba in the early 60's.

I wonder if it's possible that this research is correct, historically accurate and had indeed been intentionally hidden by government agencies - but that it is largely divorced from the actual killing of JFK.

In other words, there seems to be no end to the frustration of researchers who studiously track down important information that sheds light on the CIA, exiles, etc. because they can only find tenuous, second-hand, indirect or absolutely zero linkage to Oswald.

Is it possible that these two vast and deep areas - LHO/JFK and all things Cuba - are running along parallel historical lines with only peripheral details in common?

Mark,

You are working backwards. You don't take "all things Cuba" and try to link it to Oswald and thus the assassination, you take Oswald, or Ruby, or what happened at Dealey Plaza, or even what happened at 10th & Patton in Oak Cliff, and you follow those leads to very specific people and places that are part of the Cuban equation.

So you study Cuba to understand the big picture, but you can't say that after all the "vast deep areas" we've studied, there is "zero linkage to Oswald," as it is often Oswald who has lead us to very specific aspects of all things Cuba - ie. DRE, JM/WAVE, etc.

In the same way, you don't study all the millions of records released by the JFK Act, you study the ones you are interested in, and take special interest those they postponed, withheld, destroyed and tried to destroy.

Nor do I share your frustration or the supposed frustration of researchers "who studiously track down information that sheds light on the CIA and exiles," - "but can only find tenuous, second-hand, indirect or absoutly zero linkage to Oswald."

If your goal is to find links to Oswald, the patsy, you're chasing the rabbit, Ozzie Rabbit, just like they want you to. I thought we were trying to solve the assassination.

I used to be really frustrated at this, but not anymore. Actually I'm pretty exicted, as there are many interesting things happening in JFK assassination circles, making headlines weekly, somethings I wasn't even aware of are now happening, and I thought I was on top of things.

Now I know there's even a lot more going on, especially behind the scenes, and a number of independent researchers are on the edge of what is known about various aspects of the case, and learing new things every day. Some things don't pan out, and it can be frustrating, but at this time, I think it's a pretty exciting place to be.

I like the idea of Parallel Operations however, as that seems to be the way they did things - two track - assassination planning/backchannel communications with Castro - two track - plan to overthrow government of Chile - two track - unsuccessful plot to kill Castro/successfull operation to kill JFK. That's the MO.

Would like to know how there could possibly be Zero Linkage to Oswald?

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
Would like to know how there could possibly be Zero Linkage to Oswald?

What I meant was that Oswald's activities were keyed toward Cuba, that much is clear. And there are eyewitnesses who place him in league with Cuban actors, but no hard evidence that this linkage is related to 11-22. There seems to be no lack of photographic evidence of de Torres, Hemming, Sturgis, whomever, regarding Cuba. There is no lack of heavily xeroxed FOIA documents. They're all over the place like Easter eggs on the lawn. And there's no lack of participants willing to say this or that. The body has connective tissue but no bones with regard to Oswald.

Take Mexico for instance. Obviously there was a huge amount of clandestine activity taking place that summer. We were there, the Soviets were there, Cuba was on everybody's mind. And into that mix hops Oswald, touching peripheral bases with some of the key people in the scenario. But has the evidence shown dramatic, conclusive proof of something sinister? Or does it also suggest what the mainstream story is - that he was a wannabe? There's no tipping point.

Take Louisiana. At the same time Oswald is making noise in the streets about Cuba, there are spies, soldiers of fortune and money people scurrying out of rat holes all over the place. We've heard bits and pieces that seem to stitch Oswald together with them, but there are an equal number of details that suggest he was merely hoping to become something.

Like many, I've read dozens of JFK research books, learned a lot about the clandestine world in the early 60's, see how the research proceeds into corkscrew tangents that sometimes lead to surprisingly familiar names. So and so was part of this company which just happened to be the company that made this cog for that machine, which was a CIA front or did business in Venezuela. The six degrees of separation are always interesting but ultimately, they don't move the story off of center.

This thing needs an 800 pound gorilla that will shock the world if it's going to ignite a new round of interest. A simple fact, a detail of proof that can't be denied. Something that can't be counterbalanced by an equally plausible story on the other side. Without it, I think the parallel lines aspect is still viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that Oswald's activities were keyed toward Cuba, that much is clear. And there are eyewitnesses who place him in league with Cuban actors, but no hard evidence that this linkage is related to 11-22. There seems to be no lack of photographic evidence of de Torres, Hemming, Sturgis, whomever, regarding Cuba. There is no lack of heavily xeroxed FOIA documents. They're all over the place like Easter eggs on the lawn. And there's no lack of participants willing to say this or that. The body has connective tissue but no bones with regard to Oswald.

Take Mexico for instance. Obviously there was a huge amount of clandestine activity taking place that summer. We were there, the Soviets were there, Cuba was on everybody's mind. And into that mix hops Oswald, touching peripheral bases with some of the key people in the scenario. But has the evidence shown dramatic, conclusive proof of something sinister? Or does it also suggest what the mainstream story is - that he was a wannabe? There's no tipping point.

Take Louisiana. At the same time Oswald is making noise in the streets about Cuba, there are spies, soldiers of fortune and money people scurrying out of rat holes all over the place. We've heard bits and pieces that seem to stitch Oswald together with them, but there are an equal number of details that suggest he was merely hoping to become something....

Any discussion of conspiracy in President Kennedy's murder must always get back to Lee Oswald. For a litany of reasons, despite the incredible amount of research, he remains a mystery - more myth than man.

Frontline produced a documentary in 1993 entitled: Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? For their 2003 update they enlisted the commentary of Dom DeLillo, Edward Epstein, Gerald Posner, and Norman Mailer. Their website is fairly extensive, contains a lot of information and I think suggests closely what could be described as the "mainstream story."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/

Authors like John Armstrong (Harvey & Lee) and John Newman (Oswald and the CIA) and others have addressed discrepancies in the mainstream story that probably never will be resolved.

It's hard to think of any individual whose life has been microanalyzed any more extensively than Oswald's. That, and the fact that he is at the epicenter of an event that shook and altered the political and social landscape of the United States and much of the world, makes it particularly vexing that we still don't know the entire truth and probably never will.

Spoken in the twilight of his life, Oswald's words were chillingly unprophetic: "Everyone will know who I am now."

I have always felt that the alleged destruction of Oswald's military files had enormous significance. In another thread, Jim Root supplied this 1993 quote from Robert Blakey:

"In 1972, largely as a result of the investigations into military intelligence activities in the United States, the Defense Department destroyed all of the military intelligence files that they had about American citizens and things in the United States, which was shocking from the point of view of the committee. This general order resulted in the destruction of historically very valuable files.’

Most disturbing was the destruction by the Army intelligence of Oswald's Army intelligence file. The suspicion immediately was that this was part of a cover up. We interviewed all of the officers who were responsible for the order to destroy it, and while we have the testimony of these individuals, we do not have the file.’

Again, our ultimate conclusion was that in the United States, more often than not, the better explanation for government action is not hob nailed boots, but Keystone Cops. It's incredible how our bureaucracy simply responds in a mindless way without any regard to the historical significance of what they have."

Too many questions remain for me to buy the "mainstream" story of Lee Harvey Oswald in its entirety.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti
Too many questions remain for me to buy the "mainstream" story of Lee Harvey Oswald in its entirety.

Mike, I agree with you - after all LHO was only 24 years old when he died. I know of no other 24 year olds who traveled the world through the military, then traveled the world on their own, lived in a foreign country for declared political reasons, agitated in public for a political cause, been interviewed in newspapers, TV and on radio, caught the attention of police, FBI and CIA, etc. etc. etc. A remarkable life, regardless of one's opinion about the JFK case.

His life was so finely scrutinized, we know details of his infancy, his pubic hair, his autopsy, his internal organs. This weird completeness is in stark contrast to what we still don't know about him.

The mysteries of his life - which seem unsolvable - are ripe areas for mentally ill or craven entrepreneurs to inject themselves. These, imo, have created countless false trails that hang around the necks of researchers like chains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...