Black Propaganda Ops

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff, Cliff, Cliff,

I will check that quote. It is my recollection Talbot does not offer a good cite for the alleged Hoover statement and I do not recall it being in the taped LBJ phone conversations with Hoover. I assume you recall that the WH called the Dallas DA on the night of the assassination to order him not to include any claim in the LHO indictment that it was a foreign conspiracy.

But, with respect but amazement, your apparent ignorance of the bureacracy amazes me.

Hoover was FBI not CIA. Hoover hated the CIA.

We have now seen that CIA officers in Mexico City were debunking the Alvardo story at the same time the JM WAVE was trying to get control of DRE to stop DRE from making "dramatic" statements linking LHO to the government of Cuba.

Whatever Hoover did or did not tell LBJ has absolutely nothing to do with the premise of this thread that it was a CIA "black op". I believe that premise has now been refuted beyond any reasonable doubt.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, Cliff, Cliff,

I will check that quote.

There is a FBI memo that records the fact that that Hoover

made the call to Bobby. Talbot reconstructed the contents of the call by talking

to Bobby's people.

It is my recollection Talbot does not offer a good cite for the alleged Hoover statement and I do not recall it being in the taped LBJ phone conversations with Hoover. I assume you recall that the WH called the Dallas DA on the night of the assassination to order him not to include any claim in the LHO indictment that it was a foreign conspiracy.

I suggest you go to Max Holland's book and look up what happened

a few minutes after LBJ walked in the door of the WH -- W Averell Harriman informed

the new President that the Soviets were not involved.

Harriman: Employer.

Johnson: Employee.

Get it?

But, with respect but amazement, your apparent ignorance of the bureacracy amazes me.

Hoover was FBI not CIA. Hoover hated the CIA.

It may further amaze you (will your heart stand it, Tim?) that the

cover-up of the Kennedy assassination was given to J. Edgar Hoover, of the FBI.

The killing and the cover-up were not necessarily done by the same folks (is that

thud the sound of Tim hitting the floor?)

Phillips would have been at the intersection of the crime and the cover-up.

We have now seen that CIA officers in Mexico City were debunking the Alvardo story at the same time the JM WAVE was trying to get control of DRE to stop DRE from making "dramatic" statements linking LHO to the government of Cuba.

Whatever Hoover did or did not tell LBJ

Bobby Kennedy. What Hoover told Bobby.

What Hoover told Bobby was the very same "CIA black op" scenario -- Castro

did it. Hoover was also working that same scenario, the institutional hostilities

aside.

Hoover had the main responsibility for the cover-up no matter how it was

going to be presented -- lone nut, Castro-did-it, or right-wing-nuts.

has absolutely nothing to do with the premise of this thread that it was a CIA "black op".

I believe that premise has now been refuted beyond any reasonable doubt.

What you believe is of little consequence given your intentional

blind spots.

I cited what Hoover told Kennedy -- the same story as the "black op."

Hoover and Phillips ran into Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy.

The Yalies prevailed.

But don't let me stop you from pretending that the CIA "black op"

and Hoover's claims to Bobby -- which were identical -- were just a

co-incidence. or it never happened.

[Michael Hogan]

In Talbot's Brothers pg 10 we find that Hoover called Bobby

and claimed it was a Castro conspiracy. Bobby didn't buy it,

Tim will continue to pretend Talbot got it wrong.

There is a FBI memo that records the fact that that Hoover

made the call to Bobby. Talbot reconstructed the contents of the call by talking

to Bobby's people.

It is my recollection Talbot does not offer a good cite for the alleged Hoover statement and I do not recall it being in the taped LBJ phone conversations with Hoover.

David Talbot does indeed write on page 10:

....Hoover himself phoned Kennedy again around four that afternoon to inform him that Oswald had shuttled in and out of Cuba, which was untrue. In reality, Oswald - or somone impersonating him - had tried only once, without success, to enter Cuba through Mexico, earlier that fall. In any case, the FBI chief failed to convince Bobby that the alleged assassin was a Castro agent.

According to his footnotes, Talbot's source for the above was Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, page 10.

This is how McKnight put it:

What is historically important about the director's second call to Hickory Hill, which came at 4:01 pm (EST), was that the director told RFK that the assassin was in custody. "We," Hoover grandly announced, "had the man," overlooking the fact that it was the Dallas police who had arrested Lee Harvey Oswald. Hoover also made calls to James J Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, and Norbert A Schlei, assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel.

...Nevertheless, on the day of the assassination DeLoach's unerring, machinelike director unaccountably broke down. He had shots coming from the fourth and fifth floors of the book depository building and a Winchester rifle as the murder weapon rather than the now famous Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly owned by Oswald. He had Oswald shuffling back and forth to Castro's Cuba, when in fact Oswald's one effort to get to Cuba from Mexico in the fall of 1963 had proven futile. There is no FBI or any other government record made public that documents Oswald ever being in Cuba. Hoover told Rowley that the assassin had gunned down a Secret Service agent when in fact is was actually a Dallas cop, J D Tippit, who was killed.

McKnight goes on to make the point that:

Hoover was not happy that his agency was lagging behind army intelligence on the information curve. The FBI had a fairly extensive preassassination file on Lee Harvey Oswald, but the first reports to cross the director's desk originated with military intelligence.

In Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock writes:

4:19 PM, Hoover memo related that he had told RFK that the killer has "Communist leanings" and is a "very mean-minded individual." Hoover also related and confirmed again in a 5:15 PM memo that the subject Oswald "went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for." It is true that Hoover did pass on what appears to be some early misinformation about real time events in Dallas but it is hard to interpret the Cuba reference as a mistake since it would have had to come from Oswald's files. Hoover does not mention Oswald's activities in Mexico City or New Orleans or any suspicious contacts or connections.

I'm not debating Cliff's overall views, but I don't think Talbot is the best source on this; his account seems different than

the source he cites. Also I don't see where Hoover claimed it was a Castro conspiracy during that particular phone call to

Robert Kennedy.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

RC-D's current comments are in this charming shade of red:

Gray, you wrote:

Oh, yes, it does work exactly that way. You posted false and misleading information, I called you on it, and you can't back it up.

Carlos Bringuier never made any such statement. It is a whole-cloth fiction and nothing but.

Mr. Gray, I suggest you take a deep breath and calm yourself down. I now understand exactly why Mr. Carrol and Mr. Speer made those comments about you.

Did you READ what Mr. Charles-Dunne posted? You only put PART of it in your post. I wonder why.

As we all wonder, when you deliberately ignore, excise and glide over the points raised for you by other Forum members that you choose not to confront. Seems to me you can either be one of those who skip over what you cannot rebut, or you can accuse others of same, but not both at the same time. Pick one.

Here is the salient part:

The Directorate "was told by the CIA not to do anything or contact anyone else about the discovery for at least one hour, time enough for the agency to contact Washington and get back to them with instructions," Lanuza told Fonzi. Later that night the case officer called back to say the FBI would come by to collect their evidence.

By then, however, the DRE had already gone public. The group "was so anxious to get word out about Oswald's association with a pro-Castro group, that [we] waited only about 50 minutes," Lanuza related to Fonzi. Other members of the DRE then spread a variety of stories -- some true, some false -- about Oswald: He had attempted to infiltrate the Directorate in New Orleans (true), he had once lived in the home of the Soviet foreign minister (false), he had recently been in Mexico City (true).

The details of Oswald's pro-Castro activism, as they hit the American airwaves on the evening of November 22, 1963, had an added benefit for the Directorate: They advanced the long-standing goal of the DRE's military section. "We wanted to put pressure on Castro," Salvat explains today. The ploy worked. Castro responded by putting his Revolutionary Armed Forces on high alert along Cuba's northern coast.

It is clear from that that Joannides had nothing to do with the DRE "going public" with information about LHO's apparent links to Cuba and/or the Soviet Union. That is EXACTLY the point I made. So if that information came from Lanuza rather than Bringuier, nevertheless it substantiates the point I made: that the DRE would and did act not only without first getting marching orders from the CIA burt in this very important case directly contrary to its instructions from its CIA case officer.

It is amazing what happens when one reads more for self-confirmation than comprehension.

And it gets even better. Look at the memo to DCI from JM/Wave that Mr. Charles-Dunne posted. The CIA was actively working to debunk several of the claims made by Lanuza about Oswald. I think that memo is my "smoking gun" and it establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the entire premise of this thread is wrong! Note. however, that I call neither you nor BK as "liars"; I assume you must have simply overlooked that memo.

No, you save the word "xxxx" for Bradley Ayers, without having made the slighest effort to acquaint yourself with the man or the assertions he made. Only after having appended the epithet "xxxx" to him did you grudgingly admit that perhaps you really ought to, like, maybe get around to asking him some questions, eventually, maybe, time permitting. Of course, I'm still awaiting your proof that Castro planned to destroy NYC - a promise you made in April of 2005, as I recall - but then, I'm a patient man. I can wait and needle as long as you can stall and claim your dog ate your homework.

But I await (without holding my breath) your apology.

As we await the proof, offered by you a mere two and one half years ago, that Castro planned to blow up NYC.

And by the way, there is definitely a written statement that Hunt had been in Havana in July of 1960 and reported back that Fidel was so popular he could not be upset by any popular uprising. The fact that I have not yet found and posted it does not mean it is a false statement. What are you going to do when I do finally find and post it (which I will)? I suggest perhaps your resignation from the Forum would be in order then! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A xxxx!!

Hey, Ashton: take a number; the line forms on the left. First, we get the citation for Castro blowing up NYC, then you can wait two and one half years for your citation, OK? Sheesh, the nerve of some people.... As for having to resign from the Forum when Tim posts his citation, you have a mere two and a half years to prepare your resignation speech, if Tim's past track record is indicative. I'd get on that speech some time early in 2010 if I were you.

I also note you have failed so far to answer this very important question that I posted over eight hours ago:

If the assassination was, as you and BK assert, a CIA "black op" to tie Castro to the assassination and thus smear him (maybe even initiate an invasion) don't you suppose someone at the CIA would have had the intelligence and wherewithal to create a real "smoking gun"? The absence of such a smoking gun, I suggest, invalidates your premise.

BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING THAT MEMO FROM JM/WAVE DISPROVES YOUR THESIS. JM/WAVE WANTED TO DISCOURAGE DRE FROM MAKING "SLANTED OR DRAMATIC STATEMENTS" FALSELY LINKING LHO TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA. I AM MOST GRATEFUL TO MR. CHARLES-DUNNE FOR POSTING THAT MEMO THAT CLEARLY DEMOLISHES THE ENTIRE PREMISE THAT DALLAS WAS A "BLACK OP" SPONSORED BY THE CIA TO LINK THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA TO THE ASSASSINATION.

The foregoing folly is complete codswollop.

Let us recall a few other details that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Without CIA sponsorship, there would have been no DRE network in the US and no apparatus to disseminate anything about Oswald. Needless to say, there would also have been no fracas, arrest and radio debate with Bringuier, and no information to peddle. It seems rather too important a detail to be overlooked in Tim’s headlong charge against Ashton Gray’s points.

Parsing the relevant CIA document, a report to Director McCone, we find WAVE in Miami alerting HQ on Sunday the 24th that on the previous day it had been contacted by local FBI. Miami FBI had been asked to verify the bona fides of Lanusa and his allegations by Hoover, at its own HQ. Who alerted Hoover to Lanusa and his claims? CIA’s old Cuba hand Paul Bethel, longtime David Atlee Phillips colleague and one of the front men for Phillips’ Free Cuba Committee. Lanusa’s allegation regarding Castro’s Brazilian Embassy speech would figure prominently in subsequent CIA-promulgated attempts to pin the JFK tail on the Cuban donkey. Whose bidding is being done, in CIA providing this information- via Lanusa and Bethel - to the FBI?

When FBI approached Lanusa to confirm his story, as reported to Hoover by Bethel, Lanusa begged off providing anything further without first consulting with his case officer, George Joannides, aka “Howard.” This is a crucial point, for it indicates that Lanusa continued to believe he was acting as a proxy of, and answerable to, his CIA case officer, and was not an independent operator.

The document goes on to say that because Lanusa had effectively stonewalled the FBI, the Bureau had sought out help from WAVE in Miami. Can there be a more stark and blatant indication that DRE was CIA’s exclusive chattel than FBI seeking information about DRE from CIA? If DRE hadn’t been CIA’s property, bought and paid for, why would FBI seek its input?

The report to McCone then [tongue-in-cheek] advises that having sought out Lanusa and Fernandez – as though they were independent operators – WAVE had determined the allegations regarding the Brazil Embassy speech came from a newspaper article, but that DRE had been too squeamish to admit to the FBI that their sole source for the allegations came from a Miami Herald press clipping.

One seeking to make sense of the above might conclude what was intended from all of this; that DRE was operating at an arm’s length from CIA, and that CIA had to actually consult with Lanusa and Fernandez in order to determine what was actually in play. This is a self-serving, face-saving fiction, as the foregoing makes clear. FBI knew that DRE was CIA’s baby, and CIA knew that FBI knew it, but – compartmentalization being what it is – these self-serving fictions made their way up the respective food chains of their internal bureaucracies.

WAVE then informed FBI in Miami of this squeamishness on DRE’s part, and it “appeared [to] satisfy their query.” Translation: “they bought it.”

The final paragraph of the report to McCone is in some ways the most telling, mainly due to what – we now know – is massive mis-reportage of fact.

“DRE has been most active answering press queries re: Oswald etc due fact most news media have questioned DRE on their New Orleans TV debate with Oswald.”

Yes, and why did the media focus their attention on DRE? Because DRE publicized its contacts with Oswald, and then insisted the assassin had acted on behalf of Castro. If the media failed to take that bait, it surely wasn't due to any lack of trying to sell it to them on DRE's part.

Did DRE function as CIA’s proxy in making such assertions? Most assuredly, yes. One notes that DRE first phoned CIA, and CIA didn’t say it couldn’t do so, only that DRE should do so only after having first heard back from CIA. And let us not forget that, once confronted by FBI with its own assertions to fellow-disseminators such as CIA’s Bethel, DRE continued to insist that it must first check with its sponsor, CIA, before revealing anything to the Bureau. And when FBI had had enough of the runaround from DRE’s Lanusa, FBI went directly to DRE’s sugar daddy, JM/WAVE, who all but disowned its own proxy. As one might expect.

Complicating the issue in minor ways is a key salient detail. Only days before the assassination, CIA had advised DRE that there would be no further CIA funding. And yet, despite this knowledge, DRE personnel continued to defer to CIA, refusing to cooperate with FBI without receiving prior clearance from CIA.

It was, in fact, a most timely decision to cut DRE loose. By so doing, CIA personnel could later state with straight faces: "At the time of the assassination, CIA did not sponsor DRE."

And, yet, somehow Tim Gratz misconstrues all of this as evidence that DRE didn’t function as a CIA proxy when it disseminated falsified CIA-prepared materials. However, since Tim Gratz himself continues to disseminate the self-same falsified CIA-prepared materials, this is hardly surprising.

[Cliff Varnell]

Also I don't see where Hoover claimed it was a Castro conspiracy during that particular phone call to

Robert Kennedy.

Thanks for pulling that out for us, Michael.

The fact stands: Hoover did claim to have evidence that Oswald had been

to Cuba, very much along the lines of the so-called "CIA black op."

My point stands: all the false flag attempt needed was the word from

Hoover that Oswald connected to Cuba.

There is evidence that Hoover was prepared to press the claim.

There is evidence that the word of Harriman, however, carried the day.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Tim Gratz]

I thank Michael as well.

I knew that Talbot's citation was to "Breach of Trust" but unfortunately I do not have that book as yet.

Michael is correct that the source cited by Talbot does not support his generalization.

Michael's point is well-taken. Although Hoover had many of his facts wrong, he did not even claim that LHO was a Communist. Rather, he carefully put it that he had "Communist leanings".

You can look through all of Hoover's calls to LBJ in the "Assassination Tapes" and you will NOT see Hoover pushing any idea of a foreign conspiracy upon LBJ. And as we all know, by the end of the week when he was assembling the WC, LBJ made remarks about the importance of dispelling the rumours of a Communist conspiracy.

The record is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR: neither the FBI nor the CIA was pushing a foreign conspiracy POV on EITHER LBJ or the members of the WC.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Michael Hogan]

The record is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR: neither the FBI nor the CIA was pushing a foreign conspiracy POV on EITHER LBJ or the members of the WC.

From Breach of Trust, page 24:

Ambassador Thomas C Mann reported to the White House, FBI, and Justice Department that he and CIA Station Chief, Winston ("Win") Scott, had uncovered evidence that Castro, with possible KGB complicity, had paid to assassinate President Kennedy.

[Cliff Varnell]

I thank Michael as well.

I knew that Talbot's citation was to "Breach of Trust" but unfortunately I do not have that book as yet.

Michael is correct that the source cited by Talbot does not support his generalization.

It supports my frankly obvious observation that Hoover and the CIA were both

pushing the same "black op" scenario -- Oswald tied to Cuba and thus Castro.

Michael's point is well-taken. Although Hoover had many of his facts wrong, he did not even claim that LHO was a Communist. Rather, he carefully put it that he had "Communist leanings".

And he said that Oswald had been to Cuba, which is a lie along the lines of

the other lies of the "CIA black op."

Your bending over backwards to ignore the obvious seems painful.

You can look through all of Hoover's calls to LBJ in the "Assassination Tapes" and you will NOT see Hoover pushing any idea of a foreign conspiracy upon LBJ.

I cite the fact -- as established in The Assassination Tapes -- that Averell Harriman

barely allowed LBJ to take his coat off at the White House before informing him the

that the Soviets were in no way involved.

The crime hadn't been 6 hours old and already Harriman's "Kremlinologists" had

investigated the USSR-defecting Oswald and concluded the Soviets weren't involved.

Isn't it facinating that the FBI and the CIA had one narrative for Oswald on 11/22/63

and Harriman already had the case wrapped up with an entirely different narrative?

And as we all know, by the end of the week when he was assembling the WC, LBJ made remarks about the importance of dispelling the rumours of a Communist conspiracy.

The record is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR: neither the FBI nor the CIA was pushing a foreign conspiracy POV on EITHER LBJ or the members of the WC.

The record is abundantly clear that Harriman visited the White House and

laid down the law before 7pm on Eleven Twenty Two. Johnson and Hoover

and all the rest followed their orders, Tim.

Simple as that.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Tim Gratz]

All right, Cliff, since neither Bill nor Robert nor Ashton can answer my question, let me put it to you since unless it can be answered it demolishes the rather ridiculous "black op" theory:

If it was a "black op" why was the perpetrator not smart enough to plant a "smoking gun" conclusively establishing Cuban complicity. As I suggested before, a substantial deposit of money into an Oswald or Hidell bank account shortly after LHO returned from Mexico City is just one possibility. The CIA certainly had at its disposal the resources to create such a "smoking gun".

And Cliff, perhaps you kind be kind enough to quote a single source where Hoover or McCone (or any other CIA officer at Langley) attempted to push a foreign conspiracy scenario on LBJ? Take all the time you want.

Regarding the Harriman direction, obviously there was no way to exclude Soviet complicity in just a few hours. Although I am not going to push the idea here, I will note that there were those who thought Harriman himself was working for the Soviets.

[Tim Gratz]

The CIA's "black op" operation was so sophisticated it could not even come up with a photograph of LHO entering the Cuban or Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.

Does anyone think that if there really had been such a "black op" being run the CIA would not have been able to produce such photos?

Another "smoking gun": how difficult would it have been for the CIA to produce a falsified transcript of someone in the Cuban embassy encouraging LHO to shoot JFK?

"Black op"? It's to laugh!!

[Cliff Varnell]

All right, Cliff, since neither Bill nor Robert nor Ashton can answer my question, let me put it to you since unless it can be answered it demolishes the rather ridiculous "black op" theory:

If it was a "black op" why was the perpetrator not smart enough to plant a "smoking gun" conclusively establishing Cuban complicity.

They only needed Hoover to declare Oswald an agent of Fidel.

All Hoover had to do was trot out the Kostikov-Oswald connection,

but the CIA never got the chance to produce that.

Hoover/Phillips et al were cut off at the pass by Harriman around 7pm 11/22/63.

What part of this eludes your understanding?

Do you need me to draw a diagram, Tim?

As I suggested before, a substantial deposit of money into an Oswald or Hidell bank account shortly after LHO returned from Mexico City is just one possibility. The CIA certainly had at its disposal the resources to create such a "smoking gun".

And Cliff, perhaps you kind be kind enough to quote a single source where Hoover or McCone (or any other CIA officer at Langley) attempted to push a foreign conspiracy scenario on LBJ? Take all the time you want.

Take all the time you want to process the fact that the "Official Scenario"

was enforced by W. Averell Harriman around 7pm on 11/22/63.

From that point forward all employees of the US gov't -- especially Johnson

and Hoover -- had to promote the "lone nut" scenario.

Regarding the Harriman direction, obviously there was no way to exclude Soviet complicity in just a few hours.

Correct!

And yet that was the official position of the US gov't at 7pm 11/22/83.

Why?

Because Harriman said so.

Why did the US overthrow Diem?

Because Harriman said so.

Who was in control of American foreign policy on 11/22/63?

I think the answer is obvious.

Although I am not going to push the idea here, I will note that there were those who thought Harriman himself was working for the Soviets.

Since the guy had at one time financed the Soviets and the Nazis simultaneously,

I'd say he was working for the Harriman Crime Family, or more accurately, the

Harriman-Bush Crime Family.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff: Oswald's talk with Kostikov was not a smoking gun; although probably it could be considered at least a "non-smoking gun".

Do you believe that LHO indeed met Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy? If so, do you then believe that the Soviets were indeed behind the assassination? (Since YOU consider it a smoking gun".)

Yeah, you better draw me a diagram. Your scenario eludes me.

Do you believe that LHO was in Mexico City and met Kostikov? If so, do you believe the CIA somehow set up that meeting?

If LHO actually met Kostikov, it certainly does raise disturbing possibilities.

It is interesting that we share a disdain for Harriman. As I said in a previos thread, Harriman's advise to JFK on Diem led JFK into the biggest mistake in his presidency.

But I fail to see why LBJ would have to follow the "Harriman line".

[William Kelly]

The CIA's "black op" operation was so sophisticated it could not even come up with a photograph of LHO entering the Cuban or Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.

Does anyone think that if there really had been such a "black op" being run the CIA would not have been able to produce such photos?

Another "smoking gun": how difficult would it have been for the CIA to produce a falsified transcript of someone in the Cuban embassy encouraging LHO to shoot JFK?

"Black op"? It's to laugh!!

Tim,

You keep saying "CIA" when the items mentioned actually can be traced to either individuals who worked for CIA or as their assets, Nicaragua Intel and NSA, as in item #14.

I don't know what you mean by "smoking gun," or producing "falsified transcritpt" as each item can be traced back, not to just a confused Cuban who wants to blame Castro for all evil things, but to intelligence agents and assets, thus qualifying it as bonifide disinformation and an essential covert operations - a black op, ostensibly deniable by the actual sponsor.

As Paul Linebarger points out in his book on Psychological Warfare and Propaganda, "black propaganda," as opposed to white and grey propaganda, makes it appear the operation/disinformation actually originates with the opposition.

Setting up Oswald as the patsy was intended to pin the tail on Castro/Cuba, and that was the game plan until, in PDS's terminology, Phase One was replaced by Phase Two, the lone nut scenario.

This black prop op is still operational, as illustrated in the NSA/SHNS report from the 80s and adding Item #15 - Gus Russo's book "Live by the Sword" and Item #16, the recent German "documentary" based on Russo's work, both of which should be reviewed more closely.

As Linebarger says, once it is recognized, you can learn a lot from the study of propaganda, especially black propaganda.

In reading the Scripps Howard NS report (Item #14), "leaked" by someone in the NSA (- how come this "leak" wasn't investigated by the IG?), it is made to appear to orginate from Castro's agent who is suposidly transmitting a story to Cuba that is picked up by the NSA, when actually it is the NSA that is the origin of the whole bogus story.

Now come on Tim, aren't you going to defend the NSA like you do the CIA?

(Is there a song there?)

BK

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff: Oswald's talk with Kostikov was not a smoking gun; although probably it could be considered at least a "non-smoking gun".

Would have been if Hoover said it was.

Do you believe that LHO indeed met Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy?

This isn't about what anybody believes. The fact is Hoover was ready

to link Oswald to Cuba at 4:15pm and Averell Harriman scotched that

play at 7pm.

It's all right there in the record.

If so, do you then believe that the Soviets were indeed behind the assassination? (Since YOU consider it a smoking gun".)

Yeah, you better draw me a diagram. Your scenario eludes me.

I don't have the energy. If you don't understand Hoover's status in

America in 1963 no diagram will help you.

Do you believe that LHO was in Mexico City and met Kostikov? If so, do you believe the CIA somehow set up that meeting?

If LHO actually met Kostikov, it certainly does raise disturbing possibilities.

Then why do you have difficulty processing the fact that all Hoover had to do

was exploit this "disturbing possibility" along the lines of the "black op"?

He didn't have the chance.

It is interesting that we share a disdain for Harriman. As I said in a previos thread, Harriman's advise to JFK on Diem led JFK into the biggest mistake in his presidency.

But I fail to see why LBJ would have to follow the "Harriman line".

Who do you think runs this country? Hint: the robber baron families of yore,

well, they never stopped rob'n...

[Tim Gratz]

Your reply makes no sense whatsoever.

Have you even read the transcript of the Hoover telephone call to LBJ on the morning of the 23rd? It sure does not appear that you have.

You refuse to even say whether you believe Oswald actually met Kostikov.

As Michael pointed out, no way did LBJ say at 4:15 p.m. that there was a Communist conspiracy. He was careful not even to label Oswald as a Communist.

It must be sad and difficult to defend a pet theory unsupported by the facts.

And again no answer why there was no REAL smoking gun and why the CIA could not even produce photos of LHO in Mexico City, Some black op!