The Big Con at Dealey Plaza

[Tim Gratz]

The very clear implication of BK's first post herein, as well-written and interesting as it was, was that Dallas was a "big con" sponsored by the CIA. When I demonstrated that the CIA was in fact working to rebut stories of Cuban involvement in the assassination, he responded:

I thought my theory was that whoever was behind the psyop to blame the assassination on Cuba were [sic] also responsible for the Dealey Plaza operation. Now don't be putting theories in my mouth now.

And if you look hard enough at Alvarado you'll find David Atlee Phillips.

Now the clear implication of that latter statement is that Phillips was behind the "big con". So when I asked Bill for proof of THAT, here was his response:

Any evidence for linking [sic] Phillips to these intelligence-tinged stories has not yet been made public.

So his earlier post (linking Phillips to the creation of the Alvardo story) was nothing but convenient speculation that fits with his view of the assassination. Gee, anybody can play that game! By implication, Bill admitted there is no evidence that Phillips was consciously promoting a lie about Dallas. (Well, at least it has not yet been made public!)

But then BK adds:

We have however Phillips' own statements that he was involved in the transmission of both of the key "phase one" allegations promoted in CIA cables, the Kostikov story of October, and the Alvarado story of November 25.

So the problem is that Phillips transmitted the Alvarado story? What was he supposed to do, throw it in his waste-paper basket? How does transmitting a story translate into promoting it (as BK claims Phillips did)? (Did J. Edgar Hoover "promote" every story set forth in a report of a witness interview by one of his agents?) Besides, t is my understanding Phillips was actively involved in debunking the Alvarado story.

Did not Phillips have an affirmative obligation to immediately transmit the Alvardo allegation to his superiors in DC? What if he sat on it and it was later proved to be true?

And is this not a telling point?

Most revealing was the description of Alvarado as a "well-known Nicaraguan Communist underground member," whereas in fact (as he himself revealed later the same day) he was a penetration agent of the right-wing Somoza Government of Nicaragua. (20) (This revelation was quickly confirmed by CIA cables from Managua and Headquarters). (

So once again the CIA acted quickly to demolish the Alvardo story.

Bill, need I say any more? Can we put this baby to bed once and for all?

The fact that Phillips allowed himself to be seen in public with LHO (if in fact Phillips was Bishop) conclusively proves one of two things: (1) he was not involved in any "big con" in Dallas; or (2) he was the stupidest person ever to draw a government paycheck.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

Any evidence for linking Phillips to these intelligence-tinged stories has not yet been made public.

So his earlier post was nothinng but his speculation that its with his view of the assassination. Gee, anybody can play that game! By implication, Bill admitted there was no truth to the statement he posted that:

But then he adds:

We have however Phillips' own statements that he was involved in the transmission of both of the key "phase one" allegations promoted in CIA cables, the Kostikov story of October, and the Alvarado story of November 25.

So the problem is that Phillips transmitted the Alvarado story? What was he supposed to do, throw it in his waste-paper bag? It is my understanding Phillips was involved in debunking the Alvarado story.

Tim, Once again that is PDS's quote, not mine, and don't take it out of context:

Phillips' admitted role in the transmission of the Alvarado story, that Oswald was paid money in the Mexico City Cuban Consulate to kill Kennedy, is however corroborated by the documentary record. Here too there is a difference between Phillips own account and the cables however. In his autobiography Phillips describes the story he heard from Alvarado's lips as a lie easily seen through, indeed as a "transparent operation." (17) In the cables sent after his interviews with Alvarado, however, the tone is quite different. There we hear that "This officer was impressed by Alvarado ... wealth of detail Alvarado gives is striking." (18) One cable described Alvarado as a "quiet, very serious person, who speaks with conviction;" another, the next day, called him "completely cooperative." (19)

It is my - Bill Kelly's - understanding that it was Phillips himself who interrogated Alvarado, and while disbelieving him, sent reports to CIA HQ that he was believable.

Now Alvarado is just one of dozens of examples of well planned and coordinated attempts to blame the assassination on Cuba and Castro. Others involve Phillips too, for instance his attempt to get Veciana's uncle who worked at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City to do what Alvarado tried to do, put LHO together with Castro Cubans.

Of course the whole point of The Big Con at Dealy Plaza is to show that it was not a normal homicide, and set up as a covert operation very simliar to the Big Con Stings, that we now know were taught by the CIA's chief pysch war professor - Paul Linebarger.

The black prop op to blame Cuba for the assassination was only one element of the operation - and if you follow each such accusation - like Alvardo's - back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place - and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Of course you are only interested in picking a fight and arguing and not in following the evidence to the real suspects and the truth.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

BK wrote:

The black prop op to blame Cuba for the assassination was only one element of the operation - and if you follow each such accusation - like Alvardo's - back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place - and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Of course you are only interested in picking a fight and arguing and not in following the evidence to the real suspects and the truth.

First comment: It is most interesting that when I ask BK to prove (or at least provide SOME evidence) of his generalizations, he considers that "picking a fight". Well, I guess when you have an agenda to promote, a theory without ANY evidentiary basis, it is rather inconvenient to be asked to provide some support for the theory.

So here he goes again: "... you follow each such accusation--like Alvardo's-back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place--and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.Yeah, right. As noted above, BK has no basis for demonstrating who put Alvardo up to his story.

Back to BK's rant that I am "only interested in picking a fight . . .and not following the evidence. . ." a strange conclusion when all I am asking IS for his evidence.

So Bill I want to "follow the evidence". So please tell me who put Alvardo up to it, and what evidence there is to support your charge. Is it all your "evidence not yet made publc"?

A final observation: if Dallas was a "big con" to blame the assassination on Castro, these con-artists (not yet identified by BK) failed miserably. The sucker did not bite. Then again, the failure of the supposed "big con" might just mean there never was such a thing in the first place!

Edited October 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

The black prop op to blame Cuba for the assassination was only one element of the operation - and if you follow each such accusation - like Alvardo's - back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place - and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Of course you are only interested in picking a fight and arguing and not in following the evidence to the real suspects and the truth.

First comment: It is most interesting that when I ask BK to prove (or at least provide SOME evidence) of his generalizations, he considers that "picking a fight". Well, I guess when you have an agenda to promote, a theory without ANY evidentiary basis, it is rather inconvenient to be asked to provide some support for the theory.

So here he goes again: "...f you follow each such accusation--like Alvardo's-back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place--and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Yeah, right. As noted above, BK has no basis for demonstrating who put Alvardo up to his story.

Back to BK's rant that I am "only interested in picking a fight . . .and not following the evidence. . ." a strange conclusion when all I am asking IS for his evidence.

So Bill I want to "follow the evidence". So please tell me who put Alvardo up to it, and what evidence there is to support your charge. Is it all your "evidence not yet made publc"?

Tim,

Who are you talking to?

Why don't you just talk to me?

What's my agenda again?

I say there was a planned operation to blame the assassination on Castro, and you asked for evidence - and I gave you Alvarado - as one of a dozen examples - how general is that? - and I would like to go over them all - and also hear from other people regarding my original post - The Big Con at Dealey Plaza.

Now I suggest that one of those CIA agents behind Alvarado - if not Phillips himself - could be E. Wharton Shober - who I know was a CIA operative and pals with Somoza - who was running Alvardo if he was in fact a Nicaraguan Intelligence Agent.

And thanks to Greg, we now know how to get in contact with Shober to ask him.

It seems we are actually getting somewhere dispite your roadblocks.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I don't want to fight with you.

I like you and enjoy your articles.

Of course I am familiar with the Alvardo story.

But the mere fact that this guy came forward with this presumably false story does not prove:

(1) that anyone in the CIA put him up to it; or,

(2) even if someone in the CIA put him up to it, that person was linked to what happened in Dallas.

Now I would agree that it is important to determine who put Alvardo up to the story. I would note that whoever did was pretty sloppy because he had his dates wrong. (Now I will admit the ineptitude might be some evidence of CIA involvement!)

But we are not yet there in determining who if anyone put Alvardo up to it. And it besmirches the reputation of Phillips to blame him withno evidence. (I note now you seem to be shifting suspects.)

I offer this as a possible alternative scenario. A Castro hater (whether in the CIA or in Somoza's forces) sees that Oswald was linked to the FPCC and decides to "gild the lily" by offering "proof" that Castro was behind the assassination. In other words, they decided to attempt to make use of what they perceived of as an opportunity. It could be someone in the CIA; could be Somoza; could be Cuban exiles.

My point is: admit it, please, you do not know who put Alvardo up to it. Until that is determined, it is useless to speculate that that person or group planned the assassination.

Providing deliberately false information re the assassination is no proof that the group behind the disinformation was a Dallas conspirator. If it was, then there is proof positive that the KGB did it!

[Tim Gratz]

I offer another alternative theory.

Perhaps the "Castro did it" was a "poison pill" planted by the conspirators. They knew that the US would do anything to prevent any hint of a foreign conspiracy (remember the Friday night call to DA Wade) including putting a lid on the investigation. Thus, the Castro stories were not designed to promote a US invasion, merely to provide a "Stay out of jail" card.

And by the way the fact that someone planted false stories about Cuban involvement does not negate the possibility of actual Cuban involvement.

Analogy: the OJ case. We all know the DNA evidence against OJ was overwhelming. I do not necessarily think that that LN advocate Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, but assume that he did. One can try to frame a person who is in fact guilty. (Ironically, the glove was used successfully by Cochran to exonerate OJ.)

[William Kelly]

In my research of the CIA Catherwood Fund in Philadelphia, I found a CIA officer - E. Wharton Shober - who was head of ATEC - a Chicago based printing company that sold printing presses in Latin America - and then he became head of Hannamen Hospital in Philadelphia, which had US Army research contracts. Shober was also co-director of the Cuban Aid Relief -CAR - a Philadelphia based CIA cuban operation that assisted anti-Batista professionals who fled Cuba.

Shober was very tight with the Somozas - visited them often - and brought them to USA.

While Shober was head of the hospital - he arranged for Anastasio Somoza to receive an honorary degree - over the protesting objections of the medical school faculity and students.

When he finally left Philadelphia Shober was last known to be running a hospital in Saudi Arabia, but then I lost track of him.

I think he may have been Somoza's CIA case officer.

Any info on E. Wharton Shober would be appreciated.

BK

Bill, prior to Hahnemann, every single business venture he was involved in failed - yet he simultaneously amassed a fortune and decided to turn his attention to "philanthropy". He actually took the job at Hahnamann without pay.

The research contract I think you're alluding to (there were a few) dealt with an experimental program for addicts. It was an unmitigated catastrophe... but had the outward appearance of success via carefully orchestrated deceptions.

In the late 70s, he was indicted for bribery, and banking and mail fraud -- eventually beating all charges. This involved Federal grants obtained with assistance from Reps Flood and Eilberg. Flood was forced out of office as a result. Eilberg got 5 years after pleading guilty to conflict of interest charges and Shober got off clean.

He moved to England after Saudi Arabia and he and his wife started a computer training business in which he promotes himself as the President of a medical college - something I have not been able to confirm as true - and hard to believe given his history at Hahnamann. The couple also has as a company called Allergy Technology Ltd (they have one or two patents concerning such things as eliminating dust mites).

In recent years, he has written a novel loosely based on his experiences in Saudi Arabia. This is available through Lulu online.

Greg, according to the Web site JR linked us to, it is curious how short "Wharton Shober" what happened to the "E." - Wharton is not a first name - his ancstor's last name, -

and how he avoids mentioning Philadelphia - his hometown - that his wife mentions in her bio.

"Emeritus Honorman Medical College" doesn't exist - that is a purposely misspelling of Hahnamann - a very well known and respected school/hosptial that survived his presidency.

It seems by dropping his first name/initial and fudging his background he is trying to avoid his past, or at least keeping those who are uninformed from being able to discover it.

Now look who's backing him financially : The Drapers Company, Peter de Hann Trust, Colyer-Ferguson Charitable Trusts, Garfield Weston Fund, W.P. Carey Fund, Allan Willet Fund, Loyds TBS, the HBOS and Tudor Trust.

Their fellow Trustee William Curran does work for a real school - IUSS London, and has a background in Nuke Security.

Lets see, should my first question to E. Wharton Shober be "Are you still working for the CIA?" or "Were you Anastasio Somoza's CIA case officer in '63, and if so do you know about the Alvarado incident?"

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, obviously I do not support your premise linking false Castro stories to the planning of the assassination but your premise is important and it should not, of course, be summarily dismissed.

Clearly someone should have investigated, at the time, who put Alvardo "up to it". The mere dismissal of his story was insufficient.

Are you seriously thinking of confronting Shober? If so, I suggest you follow the example of your friend O'Reilly: take along a videographer and stick a microphone in his face so you have a visual of his reaction.

Since Alvardo was linked to Somoza intelligence it does make sense that his story was conceived by someone working with Somoza.

But as noted above, the execution of the story left a little to be desired, didn't it?

Edited October 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Since we have now discovered the whereabouts of E. Wharton Shober, co-director of the Cuban Aide Relief (CAR) - funded by the CIA's Catherwood Fund, I have posted some articles I wrote about these organizations.

James Richards says that he came across information linking Michael Paine to Reeves Wetherwall - one of the Catherwood Fund Trustees - which is entirely likely since Michael attended college near Paoli, Pa., the home of the fund on the Philadelphia Main Line.

The CAR also co-sponsored - with the Pan Am Foundation - (anybody got anything on that org.?) a conference of Cuban exile journalists during the summer of 63' at the Univesity of Miami (aka JMWAVE), which I would also like to learn more about.

BK

[Greg Parker]

Since we have now discovered the whereabouts of E. Wharton Shober, co-director of the Cuban Aide Relief (CAR) - funded by the CIA's Catherwood Fund, I have posted some articles I wrote about these organizations.

James Richards says that he came across information linking Michael Paine to Reeves Wetherwall - one of the Catherwood Fund Trustees - which is entirely likely since Michael attended college near Paoli, Pa., the home of the fund on the Philadelphia Main Line.

The CAR also co-sponsored - with the Pan Am Foundation - (anybody got anything on that org.?) a conference of Cuban exile journalists during the summer of 63' at the Univesity of Miami (aka JMWAVE), which I would also like to learn more about.

BK

Bill, I believe what you're referring to is the Pan Am Development Foundation (PADF). It was formed in '62 as a subsidiary of the Organization of American States. Gets a lot of money from USAID. Can't help specifically on the conference at UM in '63, but PADF was recently barred from a conference in Cuba - along with anyone they were sponsoring to attend. I don't think there's much need to guess why

[Dawn Meredith]

BK wrote:

The black prop op to blame Cuba for the assassination was only one element of the operation - and if you follow each such accusation - like Alvardo's - back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place - and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Of course you are only interested in picking a fight and arguing and not in following the evidence to the real suspects and the truth.

First comment: It is most interesting that when I ask BK to prove (or at least provide SOME evidence) of his generalizations, he considers that "picking a fight". Well, I guess when you have an agenda to promote, a theory without ANY evidentiary basis, it is rather inconvenient to be asked to provide some support for the theory.

So here he goes again: "...f you follow each such accusation--like Alvardo's-back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place--and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Yeah, right. As noted above, BK has no basis for demonstrating who put Alvardo up to his story.

Back to BK's rant that I am "only interested in picking a fight . . .and not following the evidence. . ." a strange conclusion when all I am asking IS for his evidence.

So Bill I want to "follow the evidence". So please tell me who put Alvardo up to it, and what evidence there is to support your charge. Is it all your "evidence not yet made publc"?

Tim,

Who are you talking to?

Why don't you just talk to me?

What's my agenda again?

I say there was a planned operation to blame the assassination on Castro, and you asked for evidence - and I gave you Alvarado - as one of a dozen examples - how general is that? - and I would like to go over them all - and also hear from other people regarding my original post - The Big Con at Dealey Plaza.

Now I suggest that one of those CIA agents behind Alvarado - if not Phillips himself - could be E. Wharton Shober - who I know was a CIA operative and pals with Somoza - who was running Alvardo if he was in fact a Nicaraguan Intelligence Agent.

And thanks to Greg, we now know how to get in contact with Shober to ask him.

It seems we are actually getting somewhere dispite your roadblocks.

BK

Bill

Don't you get weary of continually dealing with TG's defense of the CIA? "Roadblocks" is putting it very mildly.

Dawn

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

The black prop op to blame Cuba for the assassination was only one element of the operation - and if you follow each such accusation - like Alvardo's - back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place - and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Of course you are only interested in picking a fight and arguing and not in following the evidence to the real suspects and the truth.

First comment: It is most interesting that when I ask BK to prove (or at least provide SOME evidence) of his generalizations, he considers that "picking a fight". Well, I guess when you have an agenda to promote, a theory without ANY evidentiary basis, it is rather inconvenient to be asked to provide some support for the theory.

So here he goes again: "...f you follow each such accusation--like Alvardo's-back to its origin, you will arrive at the same place--and with the same suspects who were responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Yeah, right. As noted above, BK has no basis for demonstrating who put Alvardo up to his story.

Back to BK's rant that I am "only interested in picking a fight . . .and not following the evidence. . ." a strange conclusion when all I am asking IS for his evidence.

So Bill I want to "follow the evidence". So please tell me who put Alvardo up to it, and what evidence there is to support your charge. Is it all your "evidence not yet made publc"?

Tim,

Who are you talking to?

Why don't you just talk to me?

What's my agenda again?

I say there was a planned operation to blame the assassination on Castro, and you asked for evidence - and I gave you Alvarado - as one of a dozen examples - how general is that? - and I would like to go over them all - and also hear from other people regarding my original post - The Big Con at Dealey Plaza.

Now I suggest that one of those CIA agents behind Alvarado - if not Phillips himself - could be E. Wharton Shober - who I know was a CIA operative and pals with Somoza - who was running Alvardo if he was in fact a Nicaraguan Intelligence Agent.

And thanks to Greg, we now know how to get in contact with Shober to ask him.

It seems we are actually getting somewhere dispite your roadblocks.

BK

Bill

Don't you get weary of continually dealing with TG's defense of the CIA? "Roadblocks" is putting it very mildly.

Dawn

Hi Dawn,

It does get old after awhile. Though I don't mind dueling with Tim, it seems that we are both on line at the same time - usually late-night early-morning EST, and he always gets to post the last word, which I think is intimidating to others who otherwise might respond to my posts but don't bother after a long exchange with Tim about nothing.

I would hope that others would just ignore his comments and respond if they have something to say anyway.

And BTW, would you be interested in being a player in the Virtual/Mock JFK Grand Jury?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Sorry but here is the way this went down:

First Bill clearly implied that DP was a CIA "con job" pursuant to the teachings of Paul L. I asked him for proof. He linked to an article about the"Castro hoaxes". I pointed out that article itself indicated that the CIA was debunking those "hoaxes".

To which Bill accused me of putting "theories in his mouth", implying that he no longer asserts it was a CIA operation.

But he then said that if one looks closely at Alvardo one will find David Atlee Phillips--clearly implying that Phillips engineered the Alvardo story.

So, naturally, I asked him for his evidence that Phillips had engineered the Alvardo statements. To which he admitted that there was no evidence that Phillips had manufactuted the Alvardo story.

So now he is focusing on another CIA agent, one E. Wharton Shober. Of course there is no evidence that Shober put Alvardo up to it either.

Now I agree that someone coached Alvardo, and that it was important then to determine who did so, as it would still be important today if possible. But I got what I wanted from Bill: an admission that the CIA was debunking, not promoting, the "Castro did it" evidence as well as an admission that there was no evidence that Phillips put Alvardo up to it.

Dawn, I assume when you defend criminal defebdants in court you demand that the government produce the evidence against your client. That is all that I am doing here. The demand for solid evidence is only putting up "roadblocks" to a hatchet job. The whole purpose of our legal system is to allow roadblocks to prevent a "rush to judgment"--is it not? And all I ever did was ask Bill for his EVIDENCE!!

I also pointed out that the Alvardo story was put forward in a very inept way: they didn't even have their dates right re when LHO was in Mexico.

I had thought the Forum was a search for truth in the JFK case. Apparently this is not so if the truth conflicts with your favorite designated villains.

Also note the double standard. You applauded when Robert Charles-Dunne pointedly asked me to produce all my evidence that Castro did it and he then attempted to refute the evidence that I offered. Never once did I object that Mr. Charles-Dunne's sometime piercing questions demonstrated he was not interested in finding the truth In fact, it is only through piercing questions and careful examination of the evidence that we will be able to approach the truth of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, unfortunately, at this late date, unless Alvardo is still alive and can be located, it may not be possible to unravel this mystery, as important as it may be.

Assuming that someone in the CIA put him up to it. If that official were brought to testify in an ACTUAL proceeding (of whatever nature) do you think he would admit it?

Sorry to be a pessimist but I cannot imagine someone who was responsible for such a potentially incriminating act admitting to it.

[William Kelly]

Sorry but here is the way this went down:

First Bill clearly implied that DP was a CIA "con job" pursuant to the teachings of Paul L. I asked him for proof. He linked to an article about the"Castro hoaxes". I pointed out that article itself indicated that the CIA was debunking those "hoaxes".

To which Bill accused me of putting "theories in his mouth", implying that he no longer asserts it was a CIA operation.

But he then said that if one looks closely at Alvardo one will find David Atlee Phillips--clearly implying that Phillips engineered the Alvardo story.

So, naturally, I asked him for his evidence that Phillips had engineered the Alvardo statements. To which he admitted that there was no evidence that Phillips had manufactuted the Alvardo story.

So now he is focusing on another CIA agent, one E. Wharton Shober. Of course there is no evidence that Shober put Alvardo up to it either.

Now I agree that someone coached Alvardo, and that it was important then to determine who did so, as it would still be important today if possible. But I got what I wanted from Bill: an admission that the CIA was debunking, not promoting, the "Castro did it" evidence as well as an admission that there was no evidence that Phillips put Alvardo up to it.

Dawn, I assume when you defend criminal defebdants in court you demand that the government produce the evidence against your client. That is all that I am doing here. The demand for solid evidence is only putting up "roadblocks" to a hatchet job. The whole purpose of our legal system is to allow roadblocks to prevent a "rush to judgment"--is it not? And all I ever did was ask Bill for his EVIDENCE!!

I also pointed out that the Alvardo story was put forward in a very inept way: they didn't even have their dates right re when LHO was in Mexico.

I had thought the Forum was a search for truth in the JFK case. Apparently this is not so if the truth conflicts with your favorite designated villains.

Also note the double standard. You applauded when Robert Charles-Dunne pointedly asked me to produce all my evidence that Castro did it and he then attempted to refute the evidence that I offered. Never once did I object that Mr. Charles-Dunne's sometime piercing questions demonstrated he was not interested in finding the truth In fact, it is only through piercing questions and careful examination of the evidence that we will be able to approach the truth of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

Tim, You don't have to misinterpet what happened, anybody interested can read it for themselves. Nor do we need an alive Alvardo to come clean, as we know all about him and what he tried to do.

If you don't want to believe that what happened at DP was a covert op using the Big Con techniques taught by Paul Linebarger, don't. Believe whatever you want. Those who want to understand what happened at DP, and believe that Phillips, Hunt or Lansdale were involved, then they should study their mentor's methods and techniques as they were applied to 11/22/63.

I have no designated villans, but my careful examination of the "evidence" that Cuba/Castro was behind the assassination leads me to those suspects I believe were responsible for what happened at DP.

Nor did I ever say "Phillips engineered Alvarado's story." There you go again putting words and theories in my mouth. Don't try to rehash what I say.

We apparently are reading the "evidence" differently, as you say the CIA didn't buy Alvarado's story and I'm saying that Phillips, who apparently personally interrogatd him, sent a favorable report to CIA HQ that was clearly at odds with the truth.

Now I'm not blaming EWShober for anything, other than being pals with Somoza and fronting an anti-Castro Cuban organization (CAR), and we'll have to wait and see what he has to say.

Let's examine all of the evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, using Linebarger's propaganda interperetion and analysis and if he is correct, then it will tell us a lot about those who propagated it.

BK