The Big Con at Dealey Plaza

[William Kelly]

So in 1952, he was working in Mexico City with Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame. The Russian embassy was having a party, and Daddy (I suppose Hunt too) got ahold of an invitation. They had many extra copies made and distributed, so that far too many people arrived at the party, and the Russians were embarrassed. A little-known facet of the cold war.

I find it of some interest that this is very similar to one of the "dirty tricks" that Segretti proposed to me: embarass Democrats by overfilling their fund-raising dinners by printing bogus tickets to be distributed to the poor and homeless.

[Tim Gratz]

So Bill I take that as a clarification that you did not intend to imply that I participated in dirty tricks.

I hardly consider myself an "expert" because I listened to Segretti's proposals for about one hour. I do think I can be a good judge of people and have a good intuition. I knew that Segretti's tactics would in the end spell trouble for RN. What I could not in my wildest imagination conceive was that anyone at the WH or CREEP would endanger RN's re-election over such puerile schemes. The one thing that Segretti may have accomplished that was effective and helpful to RN was driving Muskie out of the race for the Dem nomination.

[William Kelly]

So in 1952, he was working in Mexico City with Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame. The Russian embassy was having a party, and Daddy (I suppose Hunt too) got ahold of an invitation. They had many extra copies made and distributed, so that far too many people arrived at the party, and the Russians were embarrassed. A little-known facet of the cold war.

I find it of some interest that this is very similar to one of the "dirty tricks" that Segretti proposed to me: embarass Democrats by overfilling their fund-raising dinners by printing bogus tickets to be distributed to the poor and homeless.

Tim, What else did Segretti teach you?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

What kind of a stupid question is that? He never taught me anything, just tried to recruit me into his dirty tricks campaign.

Segretti wanted me to place a spy in the Muskie camapign. That seemed to be his primary interest.

Within a day or two after his approach to me, I contacted CREEP through Rove to try to stop him.

Segretti was not capable of conducting any "big con" operation, in my opinion. He was a bumbler. I am not a black operative but if I was I would sure be smart enough not to leave a paper trail of all of my contacts. Segretti could have conducted a course in how not to do things. Plus, had he done any research on me, he would have easily learned that I was a straight-shooter moralist who would likely be put off by his schemes.

What i was not smart enough to do at the time was to deduce that there was a reason why Segretti stopped contacting me after I contacted CREEP. Although as I recall I believe I thought that CREEP had probably tracked him down to his source and stopped him but was unwilling to share the information with me.

[William Kelly]

What kind of a stupid question is that? He never taught me anything, just tried to recruit me into his dirty tricks campaign.

Segretti wanted me to place a spy in the Muskie camapign. That seemed to be his primary interest.

Within a day or two after his approach to me, I contacted CREEP through Rove to try to stop him.

Segretti was not capable of conducting any "big con" operation, in my opinion. He was a bumbler. I am not a black operative but if I was I would sure be smart enough not to leave a paper trail of all of my contacts. Segretti could have conducted a course in how not to do things. Plus, had he done any research on me, he would have easily learned that I was a straight-shooter moralist who would likely be put off by his schemes.

What i was not smart enough to do at the time was to deduce that there was a reason why Segretti stopped contacting me after I contacted CREEP. Although as I recall I believe I thought that CREEP had probably tracked him down to his source and stopped him but was unwilling to share the information with me.

Tim, I agree that Segretti wasn't capable of conducting any "Big Con" ops, but he certainly was a Dirty Trickster, attempting to pull off things that Linebarger taught to his psych-ops students "for foreign use only" and warning that they shouldn't be used domestically.

Yet, you said in your second post in this thread that:

"So in 1952, he was working in Mexico City with Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame. The Russian embassy was having a party, and Daddy (I suppose Hunt too) got ahold of an invitation. They had many extra copies made and distributed, so that far too many people arrived at the party, and the Russians were embarrassed. A little-known facet of the cold war."

"I find it of some interest that this is very similar to one of the "dirty tricks" that Segretti proposed to me: embarass Democrats by overfilling their fund-raising dinners by printing bogus tickets to be distributed to the poor and homeless."

So EHH and Donald Segretti were thinking on the same level, or working from the same page of Linebarger's book of Small Cons Jobs, and Segretti was fishing for recruits to carry them out.

It certainly seems that Rove read Linebarger's book.

But I am no longer a "lier" for implying that you are knowledgeable about such things, am I?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, well you are not a xxxx if you agree that I never participated in any of Segretti's dirty tricks.

But your first post certainly IMPLIED that I had.

You are a talented writer. Your writing should be more precise about these things, IMO. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being deliberately ambiguous.

And to get back to the merits, I contend that some (maybe even all) of the false stories re Castro were independently planted by people who may have only wanted to blacken Castro's name.

If there really had been an operation to blame the assassination on Castro with sufficient certainty to prompt a US invasion, I am sure the campaign would have been far more extensive and sophisticated. There was not even a planted "smoking gun".

Compare that for instance with the sophisticated operation that framed Oswald for the assassination.

[William Kelly]

Bill, well you are not a xxxx if you agree that I never participated in any of Segretti's dirty tricks.

But your first post certainly IMPLIED that I had.

You are a talented writer. Your writing should be more precise about these things, IMO. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being deliberately ambiguous.

And to get back to the merits, I contend that some (maybe even all) of the false stories re Castro were independently planted by people who may have only wanted to blacken Castro's name.

If there really had been an operation to blame the assassination on Castro with sufficient certainty to prompt a US invasion, I am sure the campaign would have been far more extensive and sophisticated. There was not even a planted "smoking gun".

Compare that for instance with the sophisticated operation that framed Oswald for the assassination.

If independent, they were singing like a chorus.

And as for the black prop ops to blame Castro and the Oswald frame,

well, I think they were one and the same.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

BK wrote:

And as for the black prop ops to blame Castro and the Oswald frame,

well, I think they were one and the same.

And it is of course my point that they were not.

The frame of Oswald was elegant and worked; the frame of Castro was sloppy to the extreme.

That is sufficient to conclude they were not the works of the same hand.

As I said before, if the CIA had indeed killed Kennedy and wanted to blame Castro for it, it would have planted several "smoking guns". Not get some guy with obvious connections with Somoza intelligence to come up with some obvious cock-and-bull story about Oswald getting paid Cuban money in public, for heaven's sake, and then getting the date wrong!

Do you think the documentation tracing Oswald to ownership of the M-C was fake? Well, if you do, anyone who could accomplish that could create a bank account for Oswald and fund it right after LHO returned from Mexico City.

It is clear there was no intelligence effort to tie LHO to Fidel.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Bill, from what little I've had time to read so far this is a very interesting thread. I am wondering if anyone knows of a (hopefully recent) biography of Linebarger, or history of his communications research?

This is a brief excerpt concerning Linebarger's efforts to 'increase' CIA covert Rollback operations in Eastern Europe taken from David

M. Barrett's book The CIA and Congress: The Untold Story From Truman To Kennedy (2005, U. of Kansas):

In nations Business Magazine, Paul Linebarger ( formerly in military intelligence during World War II) suggested

"subversion" as an offensive US weapon against the Soviet Union in 1951 and asked "Why haven't we done this?

Or are we doing it so secretly the the American people themselves don't know it? Take the second question first.

I don't think we are doing it, at least not on an effective scale. Subversion is secret, but its consequences are

not." Kersten (Charles Kersten ® Rep., Wisconsin) placed the provocative article in the Congressional record.

(p. 104)

Interesting way to structure a question. Also notice the way he pretends to assume the public would recognize signs of this "subversion" within the Eastern Block. His use of the word "scale" suggests observable paramilitary actions, when much of the real action was going on at the psy ops level. His use of the word scale, then, could possibly be setting up a misleading searching image among the public. The statement also leads the reader away from domestic repercusions of these operations such as Paper Clip and domestic "blow (not-very-far)back" from USIA campaigns.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[William Kelly]

Bill, from what little I've had time to read so far this is a very interesting thread.

BK: Hey Nate, Good to hear from you.

I am wondering if anyone knows of a (hopefully recent) biography of Linebarger, or history of his communications research?

This is from AFIO Weekly Intelligence Notes #33-06 21 August 2006

http://www.afio.com/sections/wins/2006/2006-33.html#Elms

Authors/Researchers Seeking Assistance

AUTHOR SEEKS CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIOGRAPHY OF DR. PAUL LINEBARGER Professor (emeritus) Alan Elms of UC Davis, with the cooperation of the subject's daughters, is finishing up a definitive biography of Dr. Paul Linebarger, esteemed member of the intelligence community in the mid-20th century, author of a definitive textbook, Psychological Warfare, and a man probably slated to have become Secretary, or at very least Deputy or Under Secretary, of State, had Robert Taft won the presidency. Author is seeking AFIO members, friends, and cognoscenti for any reminiscences of Paul. The Linebarger family remembers his working South American operations in the 1950s, but we have been unable to determine how to obtain what would surely have valuable reminiscences of Paul. Contact: Ralph Benko, Washington, DC, 301-461-3452.

BK: I've emaile Davis, with no response and have yet to call Benko, who seems like an interesting character.

This is a brief excerpt concerning Linebarger's efforts to 'increase' CIA covert Rollback operations in Eastern Europe taken from David

M. Barrett's book The CIA and Congress: The Untold Story From Truman To Kennedy (2005, U. of Kansas):

In nations Business Magazine, Paul Linebarger ( formerly in military intelligence during World War II) suggested

"subversion" as an offensive US weapon against the Soviet Union in 1951 and asked "Why haven't we done this?

Or are we doing it so secretly the the American people themselves don't know it? Take the second question first.

I don't think we are doing it, at least not on an effective scale. Subversion is secret, but its consequences are

not." Kersten (Charles Kersten ® Rep., Wisconsin) placed the provocative article in the Congressional record.

(p. 104)

Interesting way to structure a question. Also notice the way he pretends to assume the public would recognize signs of this "subversion" within the Eastern Block. His use of the word "scale" suggests observable paramilitary actions, when much of the real action was going on at the psy ops level. His use of the word scale, then, could possibly be setting up a misleading searching image among the public. The statement also leads the reader away from domestic repercusions of these operations such as Paper Clip and domestic "blow (not-very-far)back" from USIA campaigns.

BK: Thanks for that one Nate, and let me know if you find any othes like it.

There's other stuff out there:

http://www.cordwainer-smith.com/remember.htm

How about this recent piece from Warren Kinsella:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...86-2425280f75ca

Linebarger asserts that modern war reflects an institutional and political complexity. "A modern battle is a formal, ceremonialized and technically intricate operation," he wrote. "You must kill just the right people, in just the right way, with the right timing, in the proper place, for avowed purposes." The objective, always? "To make them change their minds." Linebarger knew more about wartime propaganda than most of us ever will,.....

And here's an article critical of the Council on Foreign Relations, which established the John Hopkins Center for International Studies where Linebarger worked.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/falseprofits.html

And finally:

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20050215.htm

Psychological WarfarePaul Linebarger This is from Paul Linebarger's Psychological Warfare, 1954 edition, pages 128-131, which is the "primer" for PSYOPS operations. Linebarger's fear was that this would be used in peace time. It appears that this is very much the case, particularly when examining the activities of the US and Israel... "Over and above the direct contribution to straight news or intelligence, enemy propaganda in times of war or crisis affords a clue to enemy strategy. If the co-ordination is not present the propaganda may do the enemy himself harm. But the moment co-ordination is present, and one end of the co-ordinate is handed over to us, we can start figuring what the co-ordination is for. Sometimes propaganda is sacrificed for weightier considerations of security; German propaganda gave little advance warning of a war with the USSR, and Soviet propaganda gave none. In other instances, the co-ordination does give the show away.

Edited October 13, 2007 by William Kelly

[Gene Kelly]

As in University of PA Wharton school?

Bill,

Here is the website for that computer training business Greg mentioned.

http://www.winfieldtrust.com/trustees.html

James

Greg, and James,

Many thanks for this info. I spent a decade trying to find this guy, and he drops the initial of his first name E. Wharton Shober - and while his wife mentions Philly he forgets to mention it in his bio.

And Greg, I don't think he amassed a fortune, I think he already had inherited it. His grandfather Shober was Governor of Pennsylvania and Wharton comes from the largest English grant landowner in South New Jersey - the Wharton Track of N.J. Pine Barrons is still an undeveloped wilderness in the most densley populated state in the union.

At least I now know where he lives and how to contact him with questions, which I will do.

I wonder if he's still pals with the Somoza family?

Thanks again, you guys are the best,

BK

[Gene Kelly]

James:

This is right out of James Bond (or Austin Powers) - gene

Thanks for that, Bill. Very interesting.

Linebarger also spent some time in Cuba during the early 1950's.

Here is a photo of Linebarger below. This one doesn't appear on the Cordwainer Smith website.

James

[William Kelly]

As in University of PA Wharton school?

Yes, Gene,

As in University of PA Wharton School,

where Donald Trump matriculated.

I was there not long ago at film fest for the premier of the documentary The Camden 28, which is now getting good response in NYC.

I wonder what the E. stands for in E. Wharton Shober?

It appears he dropped it in his vita, besides leaving out his hometown.

I'm looking forward to talking with EWS.

BK

[Greg Parker]

As in University of PA Wharton school?

Yes, Gene,

As in University of PA Wharton School,

where Donald Trump matriculated.

I was there not long ago at film fest for the premier of the documentary The Camden 28, which is now getting good response in NYC.

I wonder what the E. stands for in E. Wharton Shober?

Bill,

According to US patent records, it's Edward.

Have you checked outline of his novel, yet? Might be worth reading before talking to him since it's supposed to be based on personal experience.

http://www.lulu.com/content/628161

It appears he dropped it in his vita, besides leaving out his hometown.

I'm looking forward to talking with EWS.

BK

[William Kelly]

Say again?

Psychological Warfare Paul Linebarger -This is from Paul Linebarger's Psychological Warfare, 1954 edition, pages 128-131, which is the "primer" for PSYOPS operations.

Linebarger's fear was that this would be used in peace time. It appears that this is very much the case,...

"Over and above the direct contribution to straight news or intelligence, enemy propaganda in times of war or crisis affords a clue to enemy strategy."

"If the co-ordination is not present the propaganda may do the enemy himself harm. But the moment co-ordination is present, and one end of the co-ordinate is handed over to us, we can start figuring what the co-ordination is for. Sometimes propaganda is sacrificed for weightier considerations of security;.... In.....instances, the co-ordination does give the show away."