Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

In all of the following emphasis mine

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

(quote on)

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York,

W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960,

President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate

“with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of

all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide

William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting

the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments

secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor,

was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president.

He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the

White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

(quote off)

From JFK's taped notations on the Diem coup:

http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/cli...nam_memoir.html

(quote on)

President Kennedy: Opposed to the coup was General [Maxwell] Taylor, the

Attorney General [Robert Kennedy], Secretary [Robert] McNamara to a somewhat

lesser degree, John McCone, partly based on an old hostility to [Henry Cabot] Lodge

[Jr.] which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgement, partly as a result

of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his [CIA] station chief; in favor of the

coup was State, led by Averell Harriman, George Ball, Roger Hilsman,

supported by Mike Forrestal at the White House.

(quote off)

Via PD Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm#_ftn41

"Assassinations Report, 173. Cf. FRUS, #320; 777 (Bundy memo of April 21, 1963).

The other two documents are not in FRUS."

(quote on)

As early as January 4, 1963, Bundy proposed to President Kennedy that the

possibility of communicating with Castro be explored. (Memorandum, Bundy

to the President, 1/4/63). Bundy's memorandum on "Cuba Alternatives" of

April 23 [sic, i.e. April 21], 1963, also listed the "gradual development of some

form of accommodation with Castro" among policy alternatives. (Bundy

memorandum, 4/21/63) At a meeting on June 3, 1963, the Special Group agreed

it would be a "useful endeavour" to explore "various possibilities of establishing

channels of communication to Castro." (Memorandum of Special Group meeting,

6/6/63).

(quote off)

David Talbot's Brothers, pg 226:

(quote on)

When Lisa Howard told [envoy William] Attwood that Castro would like to

restore communications with Kennedy and offered to set up an informal meeting

at her apartment between him and Cuba's UN representative, Carlos Lechuga,

the diplomat responded enthusiastically. In a memo he wrote for [Adlai]

Stevenson and Averill Harriman -- who he was told was the best direct channel

to Kennedy -- Attwood suggested that "we have something to gain and nothing

to lose by finding out whether in fact Castro does want to talk"...Stevenson took

the proposal to Kennedy, who gave him clearance to pursue the dialogue.

Harriman too said he was "adventuresome enough" to like the idea...

(quote off)

ad·ven·ture (ăd-vĕn'chər)

n.

1.

1. An undertaking or enterprise of a hazardous nature.

2. An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving

intervention in another state's affairs.

Brothers, pg 217:

(quote on)

By the time Vietnam began to reach a crisis point late in Kennedy's term, much

of his national security bureaucracy -- weary with the president's sly maneuvers

to avoid war -- was in flagrant revolt against him. The Pentagon and CIA were

taking secret steps to sabotage his troop withdrawal plan. And even trusted

advisors like Harriman, the Moscow-friendly globe-trotting tycoon whom Kennedy

thought he could rely on to help broker a deal on Vietnam, were brazenly

undercutting his peace initiatives.

(quote off)

Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry31073

(quote on)

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the

identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the

duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick.

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the

lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence

in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open.

Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the

highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime

of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia

nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to

using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do

its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending

that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who

was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was

prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the

Mafia and/or renegade elements.

(quote off)

Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow

during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald

association.

(quote off)

"The Secret Origins of Skull & Bones":

http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html

Partial roster of Yale club "Skull & Bones":

W. Averell Harriman ('13)

McGeorge Bundy ('40)

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While it is interesting to discover who was behind things at the top - and who, how and why the planted Communist Conspiracy/Castro/Cuba evidence did not go over with those steering the investigation into the assasssination, and it was redirected to the lone-nut (PDS Phase II) scenario, the purpose of this thread was to review the black propaganda operations that were instigated, some before and some after the assassination.

As noted previously, "black propaganda," as opposed to white (press release) and shades of grey, "is specifically attributed to the enemy and allegedly supports the enemy's position," just as the black prop ops related to the assassination specifically brands Castro/Cuba as sponsors of the murder.

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE – 201 - BLACK PROPAGANDA OPEATIONS

Psychological warfare and propaganda are not subjects found on the curriculum of most colleges, but it is taught in the United States military, who have refined such procedures and techniques to a science.

The primary textbook is a rare one – Psychological Warfare – International Propaganda and Communications by Paul M. A. Linebarger (1948, U.S. Army; Duell, Sloan and Pearce, N.Y. 1954; Arno Press, 1972), which sets the tone for controlling the minds of the masses by simply using the right message.

"Pscyhological warfare, in the broad sense," according to Linebarger, "consists of the application of parts of the science called psychology to the conduct of war; psychological warfare comprises the use of propaganda against the enemy, together with such military operational measures as may supplement the propaganda. Propaganda may be described, in turn, as organized persuasion by non-violent means. War itself may be considered to be, among other things, a violent form of persuasion."

"War is waged against the minds, not the bodies of the enemy," Linebarger tells us.

The term propaganda stems from the name of the department of the Vatican which had the duty of propagating the faith.

Specifically defined, propaganda consists of "the planned use of any form of public or mass produced communication designed to affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific public purpose, whether military, economic or political."

Military propaganda consists of "the planned use of any form of communication designed to affect the minds and emotions of a given enemy, neutral or friendly foreign group for a specific strategic or tactical purpose."

Note that if the communication isn't planned it cannot be called propaganda, just as disinformation, is not disinformation if it is not intentionaly misleading information that stems from a national or corporate agency. If not planned, it's no propaganda, and if not intentional and from an official agency, it is not disinformation, but misinformation.

Linebarger says that "Propaganda is directed to the subtle niceties of thought by which people maintain their personal orientation in an unstable interpersonal world. Propaganda must use the language of the mother, the schoolteacher, the lover, the bully, the policeman, the actor, the ecclesiastic, the buddy, the newspaperman, all of them in turn. And the propaganda analysis, in weighing and evaluating propaganda, must be even more discriminating whether the propaganda is apt to hit its mark or not."

Using what he calls the STASM formula for spot analysis, Linebarger explains that propaganda can be distinguished by the consideration of five elements: 1) Source (including the media); 2) Time; 3) Audience; 4) Subject; 5) Mission.

"This formula works best," says Linebarger, "in the treatment of monitored materials of which the source is known. First point to note is the character of the source – the true source (who really got it out?), the ostensible source (whose name is signed to it?); also the first use source (who used it the first time?) and the second source (who claims merely to be using it as a quotation?)."

"It is soon evident that the mere attribution of source is a job of high magnitude. A systematic breakdown of the STASM formula produces the following analysis outline: applicable Offensive-interrupt social action not desired. Conversionary – change allegiance. Divisive – split apart enemy components. Consolidation – insure compliance of occupied civilians. Counter-propaganda – refutes."

As taught by Linebarger, there are various shades of propaganda. White propaganda is a press release, light propaganda is attributed to a friendly government, medium to a neutral government, and black propaganda, is by its definition "specifically attributed to the enemy and allegedly supports the enemy's position."

Ladislas Farago, a journalist and student of the history of intelligence operations, says that "Black propaganda is a fundamental intelligence operation…because…it never identifies its real source, and pretends to originate within or close to the enemy."

"Security is designed to keep useful information from reaching the enemy. Propaganda operations are designed to get information to him."

According to Linebarger, "Qualifications for a successful career as an effective psychological warrior requires the combination of four skills in a single individual – 1) An effective working knowledge of U.S. government administration and policy, so the purposes and plans of the government may be correctly interpreted. 2) An effective neology of correct military and naval procedure and staff operations, together with enough understanding of the arts of warfare. 3) Professional knowledge of the media, whether it stems from publishing, magazines, newspapers, radio or advertising. 4) Intimate, professional level understanding of a given area (Italy, Japan, Kwangtung, Algeria), based on first hand acquaintance, knowledge of its language, traditions, history, practical politics and customs. On top of these, a professional understanding of psychology or some similar profession."

"The man who steps up and says that he meets all five of these qualifications is a xxxx, a genius, or both," says Linebarger. "There is no perfect psychological warrior, ….however, each psychological warfare team represents a composite of these skills. Some members have two or three to start with, others have virtually none."

One of Linebargers's students, Joeseph Burkhalder Smith (in Portrait of a Cold Warrior, G. P. Putnam's Sons, NY, 1976), relates that, "Linebarger's two leading operational heroes whose activities formed the basis for lessons he wished us to learn and whose examples he thought we should follow were Lt. Col. Edward G. Lansdale and E. Howard Hunt….They had what he called 'black minds."

Two of Lansdale's black ops, one from the Philippines and the other from the Vietnam, are featured in the book, The Ugly American (W.W. Norton, 1958, by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick), in the chapters "The Ragtime Kid" and "The Six Foot Swami from Savanna."

The pre-planned black propaganda operations connected with the assassination of President Kennedy were designed to implicate Fidel Castro and Cuba in the murder, and placing the blame on Castro is one clear thread that runs through all of the media propaganda reports.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

BK wrote:

The pre-planned black propaganda operations connected with the assassination of President Kennedy were designed to implicate Fidel Castro and Cuba in the murder, and placing the blame on Castro is one clear thread that runs through all of the media propaganda reports.

What a laugh. Bill, if either you or I wanted to frame Castro, we could have done a much better job! Look at the guy in Mexico City who claimed he saw LHO taking money but his story fell apart in part because he had his dates wrong. Now if THAT was a CIA-sponsored, they picked a pretty stupid person to tell the story, and the CIA failed to ensure he even got the dates right. LOL! Moreover, the story about a money transfer taking place in public makes almost as much sense as Ayers' story of "Pearl's father" acting as a bagman to deliver money from Bonnanno to Rosselli.

It is clear to any rational person that the KGB did a very clever job of forging the alleged Hunt letter. I suspect the CIA had forged a few documents for some of its own black ops. If Dallas was a CIA black op, why do you suppose the CIA did not plant a letter in Oswald's effects clearly implicating Castro or the Soviets? (Remember the Colson/Hunt "after the fact" plot to plant left-wing literature in Bremer's apartment?

Or why not shoot JFK with a rifle that was clearly traceable to Cuba?

The absence of a "smoking gun" in my opinion disproves your scenario. Had the CIA wanted to frame Castro, you can bet your bottom dollar it would have "planted" a smoking gun, so damning even Raoul would think his brother was behind it.

Now as I stated before, I can envision a situation in which Oswald participated in a "fake assasination attempt" and perhaps he was willing to go so far as be arrested and confess he was acting on Cuban orders (i.e. the "smoking gun" would be put in place AFTER the failed assassination attempt.) But that never happened because the fake attempt was "hijacked" by the actual plotters.

I know you want to blame the CIA so bad IT HURTS, but your scenario of a "black op" simply does not fit the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BK wrote:

The pre-planned black propaganda operations connected with the assassination of President Kennedy were designed to implicate Fidel Castro and Cuba in the murder, and placing the blame on Castro is one clear thread that runs through all of the media propaganda reports.

What a laugh. Bill, if either you or I wanted to frame Castro, we could have done a much better job! Look at the guy in Mexico City who claimed he saw LHO taking money but his story fell apart in part because he had his dates wrong. Now if THAT was a CIA-sponsored, they picked a pretty stupid person to tell the story, and the CIA failed to ensure he even got the dates right. LOL! Moreover, the story about a money transfer taking place in public makes almost as much sense as Ayers' story of "Pearl's father" acting as a bagman to deliver money from Bonnanno to Rosselli.

Tim, that is one of a dozen examples under analysis. And whose blaming the CIA? That was a Nicaraguan operation. You can laugh and believe whatever you want, and that doesn't alter the fact that there was a concerted BLACK propaganda effort to blame the assassination on Castro/Cuba that began before the assassination. And it my hypothesis, that they were entwined.

It is clear to any rational person that the KGB did a very clever job of forging the alleged Hunt letter.

You seem to be the only person I know who believes the source of this disinformation - Mitrokin - who also fingered an NSA clerk who claims to have seen NSA documents that say Luis Angel Castillo was the real assassin of JFK. LACastillo is said to be related to Eddie Bay of the Bayo/Pawley/Red Cross/Tilt Operation, and one of the anti-Castro Cuban commandos who was in Cuba, and is a certified MKULTRA nut case.

And just like Mad Max Holland, whenever I want to talk about the propaganda and disinformation related to the assassination, all he wants to talk about is the Russians. What about the more blatent attempts to blame the assassination on Castro? It's all a big laugh?

And as for the rest of this note, why bother to speculate about what might have happened when we now are very close to figuring out what really did happen?

And you keep saying that I try to blame the assassinaton on the CIA, when in fact I have kept a very open mind about such things, and if you've read my stuff you should know that I suspect Oswald was run by ONI, not CIA.

So you can go on and speculate and yada, yada all you want,......

but it only happened one way and that's what I'm after.

BK

I suspect the CIA had forged a few documents for some of its own black ops. If Dallas was a CIA black op, why do you suppose the CIA did not plant a letter in Oswald's effects clearly implicating Castro or the Soviets? (Remember the Colson/Hunt "after the fact" plot to plant left-wing literature in Bremer's apartment?

Or why not shoot JFK with a rifle that was clearly traceable to Cuba?

The absence of a "smoking gun" in my opinion disproves your scenario. Had the CIA wanted to frame Castro, you can bet your bottom dollar it would have "planted" a smoking gun, so damning even Raoul would think his brother was behind it.

Now as I stated before, I can envision a situation in which Oswald participated in a "fake assasination attempt" and perhaps he was willing to go so far as be arrested and confess he was acting on Cuban orders (i.e. the "smoking gun" would be put in place AFTER the failed assassination attempt.) But that never happened because the fake attempt was "hijacked" by the actual plotters.

I know you want to blame the CIA so bad IT HURTS, but your scenario of a "black op" simply does not fit the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, with all due respect, what documentation (if any) do you have to support your assertion that "it only happened one way"?

You are joking right?

Either JFK was killed by a lone-nut gunman or he was killed by (a) professional covert action specialist(s) - one way or anohter - it can't be both, and of all the speculative possiblities, what really happened is the way it happened, not the dozens or hundreds of way it has been perceived by distant observers.

Why speculate on how many ways it could have happened, when the job of the researcher, journalist and histoiran is to determine the truth as best as possible?

While there may be many perspectives of history, it still only happened one way.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, with all due respect, what documentation (if any) do you have to support your assertion that "it only happened one way"?

You are joking right?

Either JFK was killed by a lone-nut gunman or he was killed by (a) professional covert action specialist(s) - one way or anohter - it can't be both, and of all the speculative possiblities, what really happened is the way it happened, not the dozens or hundreds of way it has been perceived by distant observers.

Why speculate on how many ways it could have happened, when the job of the researcher, journalist and histoiran is to determine the truth as best as possible?

While there may be many perspectives of history, it still only happened one way.

BK

Bill,

What documentation do you have to support your assertion that you are Bill and that it is documentation and that it does support the notion that you are Bill and that the notion is supportable and that the documentation is not non-documentation and that support actually supports something which may not in fact exist or if it does may not require support or in fact is over-supported by documentation?

Ah HAH!

When you get down to it, Tim should just copy and paste the question above and enjoy the rest of his days.

Charles

Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. The obvious speculation

from this is that Oswald had not actively participated in framing himself,

certainly not to the extent of leaving an unmistakable trail to Castro. Nor

was Oswald prepared to confess himself as a Castro-supporter acting for

the "revolution" or in response to American assassination attempts

against Fidel.

The most radical aspect of this view of the assassination is the implication

that immediately following the assassination, there were actually

competing efforts in play.

Some of the individuals involved were desperately working to carry on

their "script" in the face of Oswald's capture. They also had an urgent

need to quickly eliminate Oswald to prevent him from directing attention

to them -- given his realization that he had been set up as a patsy. At

the same time, individuals within the FBI and CIA were working to cover

up their own use of Oswald as an intelligence tool. And, at the highest

level of government, a move was underway to constrain any serious

investigation of conspiracy and portray Lee Oswald strictly as a

"lone nut".

The question is whether or not a detailed examination of events in the

hours and weeks following November 22 supports this view of events.

If it does, we would expect to see that the efforts of all parties would

be reactive, spur of the moment, reflecting no advance planning and,

at all times, in direct conflict with each other.

(quote off)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

I'm still waiting to learn how LHO's post-11/22 survival under the circumstances in which it actually occured could have been sufficient to scuttle a serious, long-planned, all-important retaliatory invasion of false sponsor Cuba.

Again, for the record:

The DPD was controlled.

Access to LHO was controlled.

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

No one would have been in a position to challenge the veracity of such a claim.

No one in a position to have heard LHO tell the truth about what led him to his cruel fate was in a position to share that info in a believable, verifiable, plan-destroying manner, let alone survive the experience.

Nothing about the pre-assassination sheep-dipping of LHO as a Castro sympathiser/agent could have been undone by the patsy's oh so brief survival.

If the assassination's sponsors truly desired to precipitate a post-assassination invasion of Cuba -- rather than use the "it looks like Castro and some of his Soviet masters did it" "evidence" only to control investigators with the threat of WW III -- it would have happened.

That's "sponsors" -- as opposed to some assassination facilitators and mechanics who no doubt participated in the hit because of their belief, encouraged by people at the top, that Castro would fall because of their efforts.

As always,

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to post
Share on other sites

burgundy is me

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

So lacking the "irrevocable proof of Castro involvement,"

which was the benchmark cited by former-CJCS Lemnitzer for establishing a

pre-text to invade (see Bamford's Body of Secrets), the Yale boys

Harriman/Bundy pulled the plug on the entire Castro-did-it scenario while

LBJ was still in the air Dallas-to-DC.

It's all right there in the historical record.

In fact, this goes for the entire assassination: how/who/why:

"It's all right there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you need to

catch them, these men you seek." :lol:

I'm still waiting to learn how LHO's post-11/22 survival under the circumstances in which it actually occured could have been sufficient to scuttle a serious, long-planned, all-important retaliatory invasion of false sponsor Cuba.

Charles, how do you sell a guy claiming to be "just a patsy"

as a Castro agent?

Think of Oswald-the-Castro-agent as a product.

There is going to be a product roll-out that involves murdering the

patsy in such a manner which would appear to directly lead to Castro.

But what the actual "product roll-out" involved was a living patsy

shouting his innocence. How on earth does that point to Castro?

And what of two centuries of American jurisprudence that says a man is

innocent until proven guilty?

How would the United States justify to the world an invasion of Cuba when

the man accused of following Castro's orders to kill JFK claims his innocence

and no genuine evidence against him actually exists?

Again, for the record:

The DPD was controlled.

And the Dallas boys were hot to trot.

SWHT pg 288:

On Friday evening, Dallas assistant D. A. William Alexander

prepared a set of formal charges for Lee Oswald. These papers charged

Oswald with murdering the President "as part of an International Communist

Conspiracy."

Same with Hoover back in DC:

id

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.

Meanwhile, Bundy calls Johnson from the White House Situation Room and

informs him that the lone assassin is in custody.

LBJ wasn't in the White House as the new prez more than ten minutes before

W. Averell Harriman informed him the Russians weren't involved. From that

7PM meeting on: the official story was Oswald-as-lone-nut. There was NO ONE

big enough to over-rule Harriman.

Access to LHO was controlled.

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the

fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

I can't for the life of me imagine how that would possibly go down. Was the DPD

going to first claim Oswald confessed to killing Kennedy in league with Castro,

and then, almost immediately after, Oswald would himself be shot in DPD

hands before he could make a public statement?

How do you sell that to the world as an excuse to invade another country?

It was one thing for Marcos to use a similar scenario as an excuse to

kill Aquino -- but as an excuse for America to invade Cuba?

No way.

No one would have been in a position to challenge the veracity of such a claim.

What about Oswald? Was his demise to immediately follow

this "false confession"?

I like the headlines the next day: OSWALD KILLS KENNEDY FOR CASTRO; RUBY

KILLS OSWALD FOR JACKIE.

No one in a position to have heard LHO tell the truth about what led him to his cruel fate was in a position to share that info in a believable, verifiable, plan-destroying manner, let alone survive the experience.

Wouldn't Oswald's murder -- having occurred immediately after this un-recorded

"confession" -- diminish the impact of such a confession?

How do you make that stick? First the guy confesses in police custody

and then he's murdered in police custody before he could make a

public statement?

And that would have put B-52s in the air?

Nothing about the pre-assassination sheep-dipping of LHO as a Castro sympathiser/agent

could have been undone by the patsy's oh so brief survival.

His death in police custody un-did all Castro links.

If the assassination's sponsors truly desired to precipitate a post-assassination invasion of Cuba -- rather than use the "it looks like Castro and some of his Soviet masters did it" "evidence" only to control investigators with the threat of WW III -- it would have happened.

Under what pre-text? Because the Dallas police said the man

confessed to being a Castro agent right before he was shot while in police

custody by a mobster?

What kind of case is that?

That's "sponsors" -- as opposed to some assassination facilitators and mechanics who no doubt participated in the hit because of their belief, encouraged by people at the top, that Castro would fall because of their efforts.

Sponsors, as in plural. Not all sponsors shared

the same agenda post-assassination, I submit.

As always,

Charles

Most enjoyable, as always.

Link to post
Share on other sites
burgundy is me

Okay, Dr. Lecture, my corrections are in pea soup green.

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

So lacking the "irrevocable proof of Castro involvement,"

which was the benchmark cited by former-CJCS Lemnitzer for establishing a

pre-text to invade (see Bamford's Body of Secrets), the Yale boys

Harriman/Bundy pulled the plug on the entire Castro-did-it scenario while

LBJ was still in the air Dallas-to-DC.

They were "lacking" in no such thing. That's the entire point in a nutshell. It was all there, and nothing LHO said/did in custody was even remotely enough to negate it.

It's all right there in the historical record.

In fact, this goes for the entire assassination: how/who/why:

"It's all right there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you need to

catch them, these men you seek." :lol:

You are not exactly thrilling me with your acumen. But we move on.

I'm still waiting to learn how LHO's post-11/22 survival under the circumstances in which it actually occured could have been sufficient to scuttle a serious, long-planned, all-important retaliatory invasion of false sponsor Cuba.

Charles, how do you sell a guy claiming to be "just a patsy"

as a Castro agent?

Think of Oswald-the-Castro-agent as a product.

There is going to be a product roll-out that involves murdering the

patsy in such a manner which would appear to directly lead to Castro.

But what the actual "product roll-out" involved was a living patsy

shouting his innocence. How on earth does that point to Castro?

And what of two centuries of American jurisprudence that says a man is

innocent until proven guilty?

How would the United States justify to the world an invasion of Cuba when

the man accused of following Castro's orders to kill JFK claims his innocence

and no genuine evidence against him actually exists?

Cliff: All kidding aside, I don't know how to get through to you beyond this point. The "shouting of innocence" easily could have been portrayed as an early stage position by a clever, devious Castro assassin.

"Two centuries of American jursiprudence" was insufficient to deflect the overthrow of the American government. It was then, as it is now, irrelevant to the powers-that-be.

Here's where you fail -- and fatally: There never was "genuine evidence against" LHO, and his survival is irrelevant to the fabricated evidence that, even if his demise had gone according to your plan, would have been enough to make the invasion real if it ever had been the real goal of the plot's sponsors.

Again, for the record:

The DPD was controlled.

And the Dallas boys were hot to trot.

SWHT pg 288:

On Friday evening, Dallas assistant D. A. William Alexander

prepared a set of formal charges for Lee Oswald. These papers charged

Oswald with murdering the President "as part of an International Communist

Conspiracy."

Same with Hoover back in DC:

id

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.

Meanwhile, Bundy calls Johnson from the White House Situation Room and

informs him that the lone assassin is in custody.

LBJ wasn't in the White House as the new prez more than ten minutes before

W. Averell Harriman informed him the Russians weren't involved. From that

7PM meeting on: the official story was Oswald-as-lone-nut. There was NO ONE

big enough to over-rule Harriman.

You're missing the obvious -- the painfully obvious. But I just can't do this anymore. So just answer the question: How does LHO's survival, given its circumstances, trump the best laid plans?

IT DOESN'T!

Access to LHO was controlled.

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the

fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

I can't for the life of me imagine how that would possibly go down. Was the DPD

going to first claim Oswald confessed to killing Kennedy in league with Castro,

and then, almost immediately after, Oswald would himself be shot in DPD

hands before he could make a public statement?

How do you sell that to the world as an excuse to invade another country?

You're thinking in 2007 terms, not in 1963 terms. C'mon, man.

You "sell" it with ease. Far greater ease than the war with Iraq was sold 40 years later.

It was one thing for Marcos to use a similar scenario as an excuse to

kill Aquino -- but as an excuse for America to invade Cuba?

No way.

No one would have been in a position to challenge the veracity of such a claim.

What about Oswald? Was his demise to immediately follow

this "false confession"?

I like the headlines the next day: OSWALD KILLS KENNEDY FOR CASTRO; RUBY

KILLS OSWALD FOR JACKIE.

No one in a position to have heard LHO tell the truth about what led him to his cruel fate was in a position to share that info in a believable, verifiable, plan-destroying manner, let alone survive the experience.

Wouldn't Oswald's murder -- having occurred immediately after this un-recorded

"confession" -- diminish the impact of such a confession?

No.

How do you make that stick? First the guy confesses in police custody

and then he's murdered in police custody before he could make a

public statement?

How do you make the LN story stick? Same way, my friend.

And that would have put B-52s in the air?

If that had been the plan? Yes.

Nothing about the pre-assassination sheep-dipping of LHO as a Castro sympathiser/agent

could have been undone by the patsy's oh so brief survival.

His death in police custody un-did all Castro links.

NO!

If the assassination's sponsors truly desired to precipitate a post-assassination invasion of Cuba -- rather than use the "it looks like Castro and some of his Soviet masters did it" "evidence" only to control investigators with the threat of WW III -- it would have happened.

Under what pre-text? Because the Dallas police said the man

confessed to being a Castro agent right before he was shot while in police

custody by a mobster?

What kind of case is that?

In support of the previous sheepdipping? All the case that would have been needed.

That's "sponsors" -- as opposed to some assassination facilitators and mechanics who no doubt participated in the hit because of their belief, encouraged by people at the top, that Castro would fall because of their efforts.

Sponsors, as in plural. Not all sponsors shared

the same agenda post-assassination, I submit.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. THE SPONSORS WERE ON THE SAME PAGE. THEIR FACILITATORS AND MECHANICS WERE BY NECESSITY AND INTENTION OF DIVERSE MOTIVES AND LEVELS OF AWARENESS.

As always,

Charles

Most enjoyable, as always.

Indeed. But I think my brain just pulled a hamstring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take one point at a time. Please cite from the historical record.

Thrill me. :lol:

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

So lacking the "irrevocable proof of Castro involvement,"

which was the benchmark cited by former-CJCS Lemnitzer for establishing a

pre-text to invade (see Bamford's Body of Secrets), the Yale boys

Harriman/Bundy pulled the plug on the entire Castro-did-it scenario while

LBJ was still in the air Dallas-to-DC.

They were "lacking" in no such thing.

What "irrevocable proof" of Castro's involvement did the DPD or

FBI or CIA possess?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted before that I do not think Dallas was a "black Op" to blame Castro and prompt an invasion of Cuba. On that Charles and I agree. One of my primary points is that had there been such an operation, there would indeed have been "irrevocable proof".

Charles wrote:

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

A very interesting thought. I cannot believe that LHO would obey an order to confess to the murder of the president risking a probable death sentence. But had he been told the future of the Western world hinged on him claiming that Castro ordered him to assassinate JFK and he somehow bunged the job, and LHO would have to do some prison time until he could be vindicated, why a true patriot might be willing to make THAT sacrifice.

This is consistent with my scenario that there may have been a "black op" going down in Dallas, but it involved a failed assassination attempt on the life of JFK. The "smoking gun" would have been the confession of LHO. But that "smoking gun" disappeared when someone hijacked the operation and the patsy was killed.

The idea that LHO was lured into participating in a failed attempt to kill JFK explains a lot of his actions. It could also explain the presence of CIA operatives in DP (assuming there were any present).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have posted before that I do not think Dallas was a "black Op" to blame Castro and prompt an invasion of Cuba. On that Charles and I agree. One of my primary points is that had there been such an operation, there would indeed have been "irrevocable proof".

And the point you insist on missing is that with Oswald in custody this

"irrevocable proof" could not be brought forward beyond Hoover

pitching it to an un-moved Bobby Kennedy.

The FACT is that Hoover claimed to have evidence of Oswald repeatedly

going to Cuba -- but with Oswald captured alive this charge became

inoperable.

Say what you want, Tim, but there's no way that a gangster killing a

patsy in the hands of Dallas police would direct suspicion on Fidel Castro.

Charles wrote:

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

A very interesting thought.

Explain to me how this would work.

First, Captain Fritz announces to the world that Oswald confessed to killing

JFK as an agent of Fidel.

Then the Castro agent is killed while in police custody -- before or after he

makes a public statement?

It would have to be before, no? You can't even allow him to yell -- "I'm

just a patsy!"

And even though there is no record of this confession, and the patsy was gunned

down by a man with life-long mob ties, the unsubstantiated statements of Fritz are

so powerful that Johnson could claim them "irrevocable proof" of Castro complicity?

That's one best saved for the tourists, Tim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, your post shows you fail to understand my scenario.

My scenario again:

A plot authorized (perhaps at a very high level) to have someone shoot at JFK in DP and miss. Oswald is arrested (alive) and admits that Castro put him up to it, justifying the US invasion of Cuba.

The plot did not involve Oswald being killed by Ruby.

But the bad guys (perhaps the mob) "hijacked" the plot and turned a fake assassination into a real one. It was their plan that Oswald would be shot not captured alive. When their plan failed they had to bring in Ruby.

Oswald may have known enough to put two and two together; hence the need of the plotters to silence him.

I am sure it is my fault for not making my scenario clear enough.

In my view, the planners of the fake failed assassination attempt NEVER intended to have Oswald killed in custody. They wanted him alive to make his "confession" about Cuban involvement. Plus, they are not going to kill their own agent.

Of course this scenario is pure speculation but what commends it to careful consideration is that it explains a lot of what happened. In other words, it fits many of the pieces of the puzzle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...