How did the capture of a live Lee Oswald change the plot?

[Ron Ecker]

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

The difference would be that he actually got to Havana from Dallas. Just as Oswald disappears, a plane takes off from Redbird, and later one person, had to be Oswald, is seen catching an exclusive flight from Mexico City to Havana. This would be the icing on the cake in the portrayal of Oswald as a Castro agent. In public perception, that would be far more convincing than the fact that Oswald handed out leaflets in New Orleans and went to Mexico City about a visa.

The "irrefutable proof" that Oswald fled to Castro (including, so I read, some luggage left in Mexico City) went down the tubes with Oswald's arrest. With Oswald sitting in jail, calling himself a patsy and asking for a New York lawyer, the plotters simply didn't have enough to make a case against Castro. So they didn't. They decided that a lone-nut assassin was in jail, until they could get rid of him.

[Charles Drago]

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

For the final time:

No difference whatsoever. In either case the patsy cannot contradict the

"irrevocable proof" he was an instrument of Fidel.

It was the Joint Chiefs who set the bar for the "irrevocable proof" requirement

for an invasion, as laid out in the Feb '62 memo on Operation Dirty Tricks (see

Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 84).

A captured suspect doesn't establish "irrevocable proof" of his guilt when he's loudly

proclaiming his innocence, does he?

Someone flying to Havana via Redbird and Mexico City is hardly "irrevocable proof," is it?

[Ron Ecker]

Someone flying to Havana via Redbird and Mexico City is hardly "irrevocable proof," is it?

It's "irrevocable proof" (in context with all the other evidence) for public consumption, in the same sense that the Bush regime presented irrevocable proof of WMDs in Iraq. All that was needed for an invasion.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Charles Drago]

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

The difference would be that he actually got to Havana from Dallas. Just as Oswald disappears, a plane takes off from Redbird, and later one person, had to be Oswald, is seen catching an exclusive flight from Mexico City to Havana. This would be the icing on the cake in the portrayal of Oswald as a Castro agent. In public perception, that would be far more convincing than the fact that Oswald handed out leaflets in New Orleans and went to Mexico City about a visa.

The "irrefutable proof" that Oswald fled to Castro (including, so I read, some luggage left in Mexico City) went down the tubes with Oswald's arrest. With Oswald sitting in jail, calling himself a patsy and asking for a New York lawyer, the plotters simply didn't have enough to make a case against Castro. So they didn't. They decided that a lone-nut assassin was in jail, until they could get rid of him.

Getting to Havana and having tried and failed to get to Havana equals a distinction without a difference. Both would work equally well.

Ron, I really think you're grasping at straw men here.

Respectfully,

Charles

[Charles Drago]

Someone flying to Havana via Redbird and Mexico City is hardly "irrevocable proof," is it?

It's "irrevocable proof" (in context with all the other evidence) for public consumption, in the same sense that the Bush regime presented irrevocable proof of WMDs in Iraq. All that was needed for an invasion.

Intent is indicative of guilt. Inculpatory. See O.J. Simpson, cash and disguise at hand, on the lam.

The JCS (members of which, to my way of thinking, were in on the scam) would have been more than satisfied with LHO's intent to flee. All the other "evidence" would have amounted to sufficient support for retaliation. Don't forget the 1960s Americans we're talking about: a naive, easily led-by-the-nose populace with the political sophistication of a soft shell crab.

Oops. Maybe change is not the irrevocable constant.

As for LHO in custody: After he dies, his "confession" is brought to the public eye: "I did it all for Fidel!"

Edited August 3, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Cliff Varnell]

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

The difference would be that he actually got to Havana from Dallas. Just as Oswald disappears, a plane takes off from Redbird, and later one person, had to be Oswald, is seen catching an exclusive flight from Mexico City to Havana. This would be the icing on the cake in the portrayal of Oswald as a Castro agent. In public perception, that would be far more convincing than the fact that Oswald handed out leaflets in New Orleans and went to Mexico City about a visa.

The "irrefutable proof" that Oswald fled to Castro (including, so I read, some luggage left in Mexico City) went down the tubes with Oswald's arrest. With Oswald sitting in jail, calling himself a patsy and asking for a New York lawyer, the plotters simply didn't have enough to make a case against Castro. So they didn't. They decided that a lone-nut assassin was in jail, until they could get rid of him.

Okay, so it's not the final time...

Ron, I think it was the plotter's betters who made that decision, on the spot, upon

Oswald's capture. They didn't need to hear him plead his innocence, they knew

it was coming. Plan A went awry, and damage control ensued.

As Larry Hancock has noted, the plotters' attempts to press the Castro-sponsored-Oswald

scenario, even after Oswald's death, were overwhelmed by Lyndon Johnson (acting

under orders from his betters, imo. )

[Ron Ecker]

I might add that the decision to scuttle the Castro-did-it scenario in favor of the lone-nut scenario was made hastily that afternoon as a result of Oswald's arrest. By evening Johnson was calling the authorities in Texas to tell them that "you have your man." In hindsight, after they had time to think about it, the plotters may have regretted this decision, thinking in Drago fashion that portraying Oswald as a Castro agent could have worked irrespective of Oswald's arrest. But I think they made the "right" decision under the circumstances.

[Cliff Varnell]

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

For the final time:

No difference whatsoever. In either case the patsy cannot contradict the

"irrevocable proof" he was an instrument of Fidel.

It was the Joint Chiefs who set the bar for the "irrevocable proof" requirement

for an invasion, as laid out in the Feb '62 memo on Operation Dirty Tricks (see

Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 84).

A captured suspect doesn't establish "irrevocable proof" of his guilt when he's loudly

proclaiming his innocence, does he?

Someone flying to Havana via Redbird and Mexico City is hardly "irrevocable proof," is it?

Hoover's claim to have evidence that Oswald "went to Cuba on several occasions,"

and the Kostikov-connection in Mexico City, would have provided the bulk of the

"irrevocable" evidence, I suspect.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Charles Drago]

I might add that the decision to scuttle the Castro-did-it scenario in favor of the lone-nut scenario was made hastily that afternoon as a result of Oswald's arrest. By evening Johnson was calling the authorities in Texas to tell them that "you have your man." In hindsight, after they had time to think about it, the plotters may have regretted this decision, thinking in Drago fashion that portraying Oswald as a Castro agent could have worked irrespective of Oswald's arrest. But I think they made the "right" decision under the circumstances.

They should have called me.

Hey, I was only 11 years old, but a precocious 11!

[Ron Ecker]

As a drunken David Morales told some of his friends, "Where was Charles Drago when we needed him?"

[Charles Drago]

Veazie Street Elementary School, room 309, Miss Gaughan, sixth grade.

[Alan Kent]

Great thread. And, why this is such a great place to learn.

I've posted this before. But I think it fits this thread.

It's from Peter Dale Scott:

Group 1 wants a certain president gone from office, before he can be reelected and make radical changes that move them from the control they have enjoyed and want to continue. They wish another person as president, one that could possibly be president for even more than 8 years. They feel this other person can either be controlled or is so corrupt he is already controlled.

So they find an enemy of the president (Group 2) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already strong desires to also get rid of this president (JFK) and his brother, the Attorney General, whom they hate.

Group 2 (Intelligence/Rightwing/Oil group) finds Group 3 (Anti-Castro Cubans) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already stong desires to get rid of this president. This group thinks they have it over Group 2 because the Attorney General is helping them with their cause against their enemy (Castro).

Group 3 is suspicious of Group 2 and sets up a patsy (same patsy created by Group 2) to not only be patsied but to blame the assassination on their other enemy. Two birds with one stone.

Group 1 is aware but has no plans to let Group 3's plan succeed. After the assassination, they drop Group 3 and follow through with the new president.

Group 2 moves on to greener pastures.

Group 3 is pissed and continues to try to blame the assassination on their other enemy (Castro).

Group 1 has moved on to greener pastures.

What's interesting in this scenario to me is that Dr. Scott is speculating, if I understand him correctly, that Texas oil and it's Intelligence ties (Murchinson, Hunt, LBJ, Phillips, Cabell and the lot) were not the originators of the plot to kill Kennedy. Instead, they executed the order. Or perhaps more accurately put, Group 1 let Group 2 (Texas) know there would be no problem if they moved on their hatred of JFK.

If true, the plot is compartmentalized to the point where it can't be followed any longer. That trail would end at Texas and it's oil interest. There could be tantalizing hints of something beyond, but how could it be followed any further?

And Castro. Sitting there for all these years. The Boogie Man so close to the United States shores. Suspiciousness if you ask me. What was the Bay of Pigs really about?

Cliff and Robert have done a very good job of contributing this thread, as usual. But I have to agree with Don Jeffries and Charles. It was never about Cuba, even though some in the conspiracy wanted it to be, were lead to believe that it would be.

And, although I do not think LBJ was central to the plot (even though he may have been the first to stoke the fires of assassination), I do believe he was in the loop. In those days immediately after the murder, he was taking orders, just like everyone else. Except for the true plotters, of course.

Now, if Dr. Scott's scenario is correct, who is Group 1? Does McGeorge Bundy offer a hint?

I think it WAS about Cuba for the originators of the plot, who, in the end, would be cast aside by far more powerful political players.

IMO, the plot that culminated in Kennedy's death was compartmentalized by necessity. The post-Cuban missile crisis rumblings that first coalesced into active planning for Kennedy's murder could not have succeeded without some degree of information/cooperation from people inside the Johnson camp. In particular,information was needed about the developing Kennedy visit to Texas. This trip was lobbied for and planned by the Johnson/Connally forces, and was known to be a near-certainty no later than April 23, 1963.

The eventual involvement of people close to Johnson with the Morales/Phillips/anti-Castro zeolot plotters represented a marriage of convenience for both groups. They certainly did not fully share the same goals.

Peter Scott's phase one/phase two analysis represents a clear explanation of what actually DID occur but is, I think, unsatisfactory as a theory of the plot's conceptualization. The problem lies in the assumption that we are looking at one A-Z affair, in which the managers (Group 1) are making use of the passions of other groups in order to advance higher ends. If we switch focus, and assume the possibility that we are looking at a convergence of plots into a sometimes unwieldy whole, different possibilities emerge.

I assume that the people who created the sinister-looking Oswald-Kostikov link (people who would have to have been close to David Phillips) really DID want to provoke a war. I think that the Johnson people were NEVER interested in a U.S.-Cuban-Soviet conflict, but were simply interested in saving Johnson from political extinction, and in protecting/expanding the politico-economic empire Johnson and cronies had skillfully fashioned over the years. The Kennedys stood in the way of both groups.

If this theory of convergence has validity, we need to look for "crossover" types in 1963: people who had relevant connections to the Johnson camp and were also plugged tightly into anti-Castro-intelligence circles. I think they can be found.

In sum, I think that the plotting began with religious fervor, and in the end was whittled down to a very profitable, sophisticated investment plan. The twists and turns of the plotting as it developed during 1963 reflect the "chaos theory" inherent in Scott's deep political analysis.

[Robert Howard]

This is an interesting thread, and I would like to add my two cents worth. Ron Ecker raises some very valid points regarding the Oswald scenario of fleeing to Cuba, after "killing Kennedy."

I suppose it is stating the obvious, but the fact that there are, "historical ambiguities" regarding what actually happened....[as in if we had the technology to watch the events in Dealey Plaza live as they happened stationed about 300 feet over Houston and Main Street, with a pair of binoculars and then could follow not only Oswald's route, but the route taken be the person who ran out the TSBD at 12:40 P.M. as well]

What has resulted are arguably frozen snapshots in time. Bit's and pieces of reality, if you will. I didn't start researching the Kennedy Assassination a couple of day's ago, and there is certainly enough evidence to lead one to conclude that the general idea, if you will pardon the expression was to kill "two birds with one stone." And if that was the case, there was help from on high, & I'm not talking about God.

While those who believe that David Ferrie or someone else was supposed to fly Oswald out of Dallas and either to Cuba, or a country without an extradition treaty with the United States, certainly have their followers, but then there was the Tippit shooting and the Texas Theater arrest. Some people are stuck in their thinking that since Ferrie's plane had not been in use for awhile, it means he couldn't have flown someone else's. And in the previous three months before Dealey Plaza, there were flights aplenty, such as the one Alex Rorke went on.

I am sure everyone is familiar with the account given of looking for Lyndon on the jet back to Washington and being found in a bathroom, crouched in a corner acting like a basket case.....[Not exactly "Profiles in Courage" eh] So, does this equate with a very tight knit group in concert with a new President, who is putting on an act, to give the lie to his ascension to the Presidency, or did it even happen?

At any rate, irrespective of what really did happen, going 1 for 2 [hitting.500] wasn't a bad day's work. After calling Nag's Head N.C. for Mr. Hurt [or Mr Hurt trying to call the Dallas jail ostensibly not getting through] Lee probably could see the writing on the wall.

Probably the most upsetting aspect of the last 45 or so years is "The curse of Santanya," we have went from being the leader of the free world, to rising on everyone else's S_ _ _ list, while all our proverbial Nero's fiddle about.......Call it the globalization version of The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight.

[Don Jeffries]

I think we need to look at the big picture here. Most of us agree that some of the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination of JFK. Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation? Keep in mind that not only does this theory make no sense in light of what happened in the immediate aftermath, or over the ensuing years, it also makes no sense in light of what had been transpiring during JFK's term of office. They had been trying to topple Castro, first through the Bay of Pigs, and then with their ludicrous assassination attempts, throughout the Kennedy White House years. Since he obviously couldn't stop them from doing that, and since they were literally at war with each other, why would they feel the necessity of killing the President of the United States in order to achieve a goal they hadn't accomplished despite years of effort? As for imagining that the public would rally around them once the dead assassin was exposed as a Castro sympathizer, why weren't they pushing this theory from the beginning? On the contrary, the lone assassin nonsense was visible as early as a few hours after Oswald had been arrested, when McGeorge Bundy assured the members of the cabinet (who were flying back from Hawaii) that the assassin had been caught and there was no conspiracy. If Bundy was involved in the planning of the assassination, as I suspect he was, wouldn't he have been pushing a "Castro did it" mantra? Also, if you watch the NBC news coverage from November 22, 1963, you will see lots of evidence of the lone nut scenario, even before Oswald was caught. Constant references to "an assassin" or "a sniper," and no mention of all the police and witnesses running towards the grassy knoll. I don't see how the news coverage changed once Oswald was arrested, or after he was murdered. I think the basics of the Warren Report could be seen in the moments right after JFK was pronounced dead that afternoon. Another point- if the plan to topple Castro was scrapped as soon as Oswald was captured alive, then why did the media-who was certainly covering up already by the time Oswald was in custody-keep pushing the defection to Russia and Oswald's connections to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? What was the need for that, at that point? Were they still planning an invasion, but stopped for some reason? I'm sorry for asking so many questions, but none of this makes any sense to me. It's certainly a lot easier to speculate that Vietnam was the primary reason behind the assassination, since we see an immediate policy shift by LBJ right after the assassination. If JFK was killed by conspirators who wanted us to become more involved in Vietnam, and knew he wanted to pull out, then this is exactly what we would expect to see, isn't it?

I know that there are now many researchers who argue that the conspiracy and the coverup were separate and that different people were involved in each. That certainly has to be true, but how do we explain the continuing nature of the coverup? What forces could compel the top brass at ABC and talking head Peter Jennings to produce the ridiculous special they aired during the 40th anniversary time frame? What, beyond financial reward, motivates someone like Vince Bugliosi to produce his mammoth disinformation piece "Reclaiming History?" What possible reason lies behind Tom Hanks agreeing to become involved in this farce (it certainly can't be for financial reward)? Do we honestly think that the media, and every elected political figure, continues to lie about the assassination of JFK to protect the planned coup of Castro, and the fact it was abandoned because Oswald was captured alive? Common sense tells us that, at this point in time, 40 years after the event, there had to have been extraordinarily important reasons behind the assassination, in order to trigger these continuing lies. I believe that those who covered up the truth, and continue to cover up the truth about the assassination of JFK, did so at the behest of the same powerful forces who killed him, and that the reasons behind both the murder and the coverup did not really involve our policy towards Castro.

[Charles Drago]

Put this post in the "Correspondents' Privilege" file.

I must add the following postcript to my most recent, lengthy, and allegedly "final" serve to RCD.

He wrote, “Having gone to all the trouble to lay on this patina of superficially compelling evidence of Cuban complicity, why wouldn't there have been an invasion? It's a gimme; two for the price of one … And yet you maintain, without providing the slightest evidence for the assertion, that all of the above details were purely intended for a private audience, to frighten them into compliance with the coverup, and would never have found a broader audience.”

Two points in rebuttal:

1. The plot's sponsors went to the trouble of ordering the laying on of the "patina" which you reference to insulate themselves from incorruptable investigators. This was the sine qua non for their self-preservation. All formal, parent state-sponsored inquiries had to be stopped at the LN point, and the only way to do that would be to convince the honest searchers -- who from Day One would have had clear-cut evidence of conspiracy in hand -- to stand down and endorse the LN lie for the greater good of the country and indeed all of humanity. Nothing short of the threat of nuclear war could have made this happen.

2. You too, sir, make the leap from knowledge to supposition "without providing the slightest evidence for [your] assertion." Your "invasion called off" hypothesis is no more or less valid than my "no invasion intended" position. They are, at best, best guesses -- interpretations that say more about their respective proponents, perhaps, than about anything else.

Okay. It's raining at Wimbledon and I'm heading for Anna Kornakova's locker.

Charles Drago