Black Propaganda Ops

[Cliff Varnell]

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, ppg 311-2:

(quote on)

SUMMARY [Chapt. 15]

Among the difficulties in understanding the Kennedy conspiracy, perhaps

the most challenging is reconciling the many elements that appear to be

contradictory. This has been made even more difficult for those who have

viewed the "cover-up" as an extension of the conspiracy. That difficulty

disappears if we first view the conspiracy to frame Oswald as a Castro

(or both Cuba and Soviet associated) conspirator, a plan that came totally

unraveled when Oswald was taken into custody. And second, we see that

the so-called "cover-up" was an independent, largely unplanned and highly

reactive effort to ensure that a Lee Oswald would [take] the fall by himself--

as a lone nut.

We may have a [more] descriptive term than "cover-up", see how much

sense it makes when you picture it as "damage control."

* The plot was to show the US President being killed by a Castro sponsored

conspiracy.

* The plotters were unable to execute their full plan due to Oswald's capture.

* Due to Oswald's role as an intelligence dangle and his contact with Kostikov,

the initial appearance was still that Oswald might have been acting as a

Communist dupe.

* Both the FBI and CIA were aware of the Kostikov implications; when, how,

and if they shared this information with the new President is unclear.

* Lyndon Johnson personally led the official cover-up to eliminate any

public suggestion of conspiracy while leveraging confidential information

and the threat of war to make the cover-up work.

* The "lone nut" was a creation of the official cover-up, not of the Kennedy

plot.

* The plotters' follow-on efforts to maintain conspiracy were overwhelmed by

Johnson.

Johnson's motivation in the cover-up remains uncertain, partially because the

historical record has been sanitized to remove any items that would reveal a

discussion of conspiracy...

(quote off)

[Tim Gratz]

To Bill,

Never before in our history was there was a fake attack on a US Naval base used to justify an invasion of Cuba (or any other country for that matter). But that was considered as you know.

No jet airplanes crashed into the twin towers on 9-11-2001 of course--because never before had a jet airliner been used as a flying bomb.

Man never landed on the moon in 1969 because it had never happened before.

And to those who think the CIA killed Kennedy, well that can be conclusively ruled out because the CIA had never killed DDE and its predecessor had never killed FDR or HST.

Well, you get my drift. You cannot use logic to rule out the scenario. In fact "Operation Northwoods" is strong support for such an extreme measure. In fact, it is less extreme than a lot of the Northwoods scenarios that could have gotten someone killed--although admittedly LHO may have been at risk in the fake attempt because if it did happen that way neither the SS nor the DPD were "in the loop".

By the way, I will try to find out but there IS (I am quite sure) for use of a fake assassination.

And perhaps if there was a missed shot it was part of the "fake assassination".

There are both fictionaal and allegedly nonfictional accounts of a plot for a "fake assassination".

I can tell you that Tim Carroll was intrigued by the idea.

My scenario explains what happened a lot better than yours. Yours lacks a smoking gun. In mine there would have been a smoking gun after Oswald was captured, but that fell apart when the bad guys hijacked the plot.

And I JUST had this thought: if it was in the planning for a long time the failed assassination scheme could even explain the MC; it could be cited as a cheap rifle that missed.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

MEXIDATA . INFO

Column 032204 Thompson

Monday, March 22, 2004

Mexico assassination attack may have been political theater

By Barnard R. Thompson

Reports of an assassination attempt against José Murat Casab, governor of the Mexican state of Oaxaca, made breaking news headlines worldwide following the March 18 attack.

According to early details, shortly after 8:00 a.m. a group of from three to 13 assailants armed with automatic rifles and 9mm pistols ambushed the vehicle Murat was said to be driving. The governor, while bruised and shaken was uninjured in consequence of the assault, however two of his bodyguards were wounded, one seriously.

The incident was quickly condemned in Mexico, from President Vicente Fox Quesada on down, and an immediate dragnet was put out to find not only the perpetrators but also who was behind the assassination try.

At the same time Fox was telling bankers at a convention in Acapulco that this was an isolated incident, and that Mexico is a calm and peaceful nation. Members of his team swiftly declared that in spite of this violence and recent corruption related political scandals Mexico is not moving towards ungovernableness.

And on top of all this, by the next morning commentators nationwide were seriously questioning the authenticity of the alleged assassination attempt on Murat.

José Murat is a cacique — a political boss — in the most classic of Mexican senses. And he is a super cacique in a state of caciques, an iron willed strongman and aggressive nationalist who has managed to subjugate many others in the often-conflictive Oaxaca, a state of tourist wonders that is also home to various indigenous and ethnic groups, political movements, so-called guerrillas and drug traffickers.

Born in 1949, Murat received his law degree from the National Autonomous University of Mexico around the same time he joined the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 1971. A career politician, Murat served three separate terms in the federal Chamber of Deputies and one in the Senate before he was elected governor of his native Oaxaca in 1998.

Moreover, the controversial Murat now has his eye on the Mexican presidency in 2006, which is why many believe he may have staged his own assassination attempt.

But the altering versions of the incident, as told by Murat and his allies following the Thursday morning gunfire, are full of more holes than the vehicle that was supposedly sprayed by shooters with Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Photographs taken of the SUV-type vehicle immediately following the attack showed but three rather immaculate bullet holes, two in the center and one on the passenger side of an otherwise undamaged windshield. Four hours later the vehicle appeared with two additional smashing impacts on the driver’s side of the same windshield. Murat first told reporters that “the windshield came in on top of me,” but both pictures certainly refute that claim.

In an effort to clarify the questions, police chief Ricardo Dorantes said that the glass was further shattered due to rough handling by a tow truck. Neighborhood onlookers said however that the vehicle was never towed, while a man wearing blue jeans did drive it away from the scene for a period of time.

A deputy state attorney general said the vehicle “was lost for about 15 minutes, during which time the windshield could have been smashed” (Reforma, 03/20/04). An AP report, of March 20, quotes the official as saying “the crime scene was left unguarded for 15 to 20 minutes, during which time the windshield … was shattered.”

The official version of how Murat escaped the gunfire claims an unidentified passing motorist scooped up the governor and drove him to a social security clinic. However the governor’s security chief said he was the one who drove his boss to the clinic in an escorted vehicle.

Murat first said that bodyguards pulled him from the SUV and pushed him under a parked car for protection, whereas the attorney general of Oaxaca said that the governor ran from the scene. The aforementioned AP report quotes Murat as also saying an unidentified motorist picked him up and drove him not to a clinic but to a hotel.

Of course the big question is why would anyone stage something so reprehensible? And if it was theater, was it a stunt to grab headlines as many suggest?

Or could it likewise be that the PRI standard bearer is running behind in the polls, to a popular (ex-PRI member) coalition candidate, in the run-up to the August 1 gubernatorial elections? Among other things, Murat might see a first time ever PRI defeat in his Oaxaca fiefdom as an impediment to his own 2006 presidential aspirations.

[Tim Gratz]

MEXIDATA . INFO

Column 032204 Thompson

Monday, March 22, 2004

Mexico assassination attack may have been political theater

By Barnard R. Thompson

Reports of an assassination attempt against José Murat Casab, governor of the Mexican state of Oaxaca, made breaking news headlines worldwide following the March 18 attack.

According to early details, shortly after 8:00 a.m. a group of from three to 13 assailants armed with automatic rifles and 9mm pistols ambushed the vehicle Murat was said to be driving. The governor, while bruised and shaken was uninjured in consequence of the assault, however two of his bodyguards were wounded, one seriously.

The incident was quickly condemned in Mexico, from President Vicente Fox Quesada on down, and an immediate dragnet was put out to find not only the perpetrators but also who was behind the assassination try.

At the same time Fox was telling bankers at a convention in Acapulco that this was an isolated incident, and that Mexico is a calm and peaceful nation. Members of his team swiftly declared that in spite of this violence and recent corruption related political scandals Mexico is not moving towards ungovernableness.

And on top of all this, by the next morning commentators nationwide were seriously questioning the authenticity of the alleged assassination attempt on Murat.

José Murat is a cacique — a political boss — in the most classic of Mexican senses. And he is a super cacique in a state of caciques, an iron willed strongman and aggressive nationalist who has managed to subjugate many others in the often-conflictive Oaxaca, a state of tourist wonders that is also home to various indigenous and ethnic groups, political movements, so-called guerrillas and drug traffickers.

Born in 1949, Murat received his law degree from the National Autonomous University of Mexico around the same time he joined the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 1971. A career politician, Murat served three separate terms in the federal Chamber of Deputies and one in the Senate before he was elected governor of his native Oaxaca in 1998.

Moreover, the controversial Murat now has his eye on the Mexican presidency in 2006, which is why many believe he may have staged his own assassination attempt.

But the altering versions of the incident, as told by Murat and his allies following the Thursday morning gunfire, are full of more holes than the vehicle that was supposedly sprayed by shooters with Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Photographs taken of the SUV-type vehicle immediately following the attack showed but three rather immaculate bullet holes, two in the center and one on the passenger side of an otherwise undamaged windshield. Four hours later the vehicle appeared with two additional smashing impacts on the driver’s side of the same windshield. Murat first told reporters that “the windshield came in on top of me,” but both pictures certainly refute that claim.

In an effort to clarify the questions, police chief Ricardo Dorantes said that the glass was further shattered due to rough handling by a tow truck. Neighborhood onlookers said however that the vehicle was never towed, while a man wearing blue jeans did drive it away from the scene for a period of time.

A deputy state attorney general said the vehicle “was lost for about 15 minutes, during which time the windshield could have been smashed” (Reforma, 03/20/04). An AP report, of March 20, quotes the official as saying “the crime scene was left unguarded for 15 to 20 minutes, during which time the windshield … was shattered.”

The official version of how Murat escaped the gunfire claims an unidentified passing motorist scooped up the governor and drove him to a social security clinic. However the governor’s security chief said he was the one who drove his boss to the clinic in an escorted vehicle.

Murat first said that bodyguards pulled him from the SUV and pushed him under a parked car for protection, whereas the attorney general of Oaxaca said that the governor ran from the scene. The aforementioned AP report quotes Murat as also saying an unidentified motorist picked him up and drove him not to a clinic but to a hotel.

Of course the big question is why would anyone stage something so reprehensible? And if it was theater, was it a stunt to grab headlines as many suggest?

Or could it likewise be that the PRI standard bearer is running behind in the polls, to a popular (ex-PRI member) coalition candidate, in the run-up to the August 1 gubernatorial elections? Among other things, Murat might see a first time ever PRI defeat in his Oaxaca fiefdom as an impediment to his own 2006 presidential aspirations.

[Tim Gratz]

The computer just gave birth to triplets! Sorry!

[Cliff Varnell]

My scenario explains what happened a lot better than yours. Yours lacks a smoking gun.

Hoover memo at 5:15pm 11/22/63 directly implicated the head of the FBI in the

frame-Castro black-propaganda op.

[Charles Drago]

I (CD) will now appear in green.

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.

As always, quite wrong. You still won't explain your reasoning. You still won't define "custody" in terms of the DPD c. 1963.

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

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

inoperable.

Cliff, saying so doesn't make it so. Still no basis for your claim.

... there's no way that a gangster killing a

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

Wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Worthy of Bugliosi, I'm afraid.

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!"

Sure you can. The explanation: LHO was playing games, first denying guilt, then proclaiming it. Of course the latter would have to have occured under "private" circumstances.

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?

Absolutely! You're forgetting how much false evidence linking LHO to Fidel had been set in place to service the disparate ends of the sponsors and facilitators (the latter in part). It was enough to convince Earl Warren and others to back off. And it would have been enough to justify an invasion regardless of LHO's fate -- if, that is, an invasion was one of the sponsors' goals. Which, of course, it was not.

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

See you in the First Class lounge, boys.

[Charles Drago]

Another twofer.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Cliff Varnell]

Me:

There's no way that a gangster killing a patsy in the hands of Dallas

police would direct suspicion on Fidel Castro.

Charles:

Wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Worthy of Bugliosi, I'm afraid.

Absolutely relevant to the operation pinning Oswald on Castro.

Review what Martino stated (SWHT pg 272):

[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.

Please enlighten me how a life-long American mobster, put to killing the patsy

while the patsy was literally in the hands of the Dallas police, directly implicates

Fidel Castro?

In the meantime, as always, I refer to the historical record:

James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS pg 87, Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer wrote in

a memorandum to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara,

April 10, 1962:

(quote on, emphasis added)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved

in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in

overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal

uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures.

Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States

will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint

Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military

intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe

that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize

communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

"UN action" was a documented concern -- a concern that no phony Oswald

confession and a rapid Oswald demise was going to allay.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's take this all the way back.

Monroe Doctrine (1823)

The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

America had 140 years of declared hegemony over the Western Hemisphere.

The need for a "boogy-man" to leverage said hegemony appears redundant.

And if it was the goal of the Harriman Security State (see Tarpley, Webster)

to create a Latin American boogy-man why didn't they do it in Guatemala, with

Arbenz (& Che) instead of sacrificing the jewel of the Caribbean to Fidel & Che?

[Tim Gratz]

In the thread of George Michael Evica, Charles Drago states that Kenneth Rahn makes the following claim re one of Evica's beliefs:

". JFK was killed by a simulated attack in Dealey Plaza, planned as a test of security but turned into a real attack by J. Edgar Hoover and a few other agents within the FBI (Perfect Cover)."

To which Charles responds: CORRECTION: There likely was a simulated attack planned in Dealey Plaza, one that was incorporated into the final, real attack plan. (He goes on to state that Evica did not believe the plot involved JEH and a few other FBI agents.)

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, believe it or not Charles and I agree that there was likely a "simulated attack planned in Dealey Plaza". Just what I had been arguing on this thread. I suspect the purpose of the simulated attack was to generate a strike against Cuba, but others (apparently including Evica) argue the plot was planned either as a test of security or to demonstrate to JFK the lack of his security.

Perhaps Peter will rethink his reject of my scenario now that he knows a version of it has been endorsed by Messrs. Evica and Drago.

Charles writes that the simulated attack was incorporated into the real one. It is certainly a possibility that LHO was lured into a real plot after being told it was to be only "simulated", but it is also possible the plot was discovered and hijacked by the real bad guys.

In any event, I think the scenario of a "simulated attack" which was sold to Oswald merits serious consideration since it can explain a lot of Oswald's actions.

[Cliff Varnell]

Of course they didn't "intend for Castro to be removed." They had put the

bastard in power! Tosh Plumlee was flying missions for CIA from 1956

through at least 1958 running guns from the Florida Keys to Castro and

the 26th of July Movement! It was Raul Castro who got Plumlee off the

island when his plane went down on one of the runs in 1958, and Fidel

gave Plumlee a fatigue hat, for the love of Christ!

Castro has been playing the yanquis for suckers for the better part of

6 decades.

The history of Cuban-U.S. relations has been one big chump-a-thon,

with Fidel getting the better of the anglos at every turn.

If the CIA ever succeeded at removing the head of a Communist

state, I've missed it.

And it wasn't just guns they were running to and from Cuba and the

Florida Keys. If Castro hasn't tapped into the drug trade I'll eat Tosh's

fatigue hat!

Leveraging both ends against the middle was always Harriman's m.o.

[Cliff Varnell]

From pages vii-viii of the Preface to Medicolegal Investigation of the

President John F. Kennedy Murder, 1978, Charles G. Wilber, Ph.d

(emphasis in the original):

An Example of Suppressed Information

Unexpected news releases by government agencies from time to time try the faith

of Americans in the integrity of the Warren Commission as a group and as individuals.

For example, the following news release was carried on national radio and television

services on 13 November 1976.

A memorandum from late FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, has recently come to light.

In that document, Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have told Fidel Castro that he, Oswald,

planned to murder President John F. Kennedy. A highly reliable source is said to have

revealed the matter to Hoover after being himself told of it by Castro. This memorandum,

if true, suggests that Castro or his henchmen were involved in Kennedy's murder in

retaliation for CIA attempts to kill Castro.

Reportedly, shortly after Oswald told Castro of his plans, he (Oswald) got a job at the

Texas School Book Depository Building. Detailed plans of the exact route that the

presidential cavalcade would take through Dallas were presumably not firm until long

after that time. Oswald's preknowledge of just what building would be ideal for his

sniper attempt even before the parade route was allegedly selected is remarkable to

say the least, especially for a nonentity working alone and with no help from anyone

but himself.

[Tim Gratz]

Y'all know I doubt that LHO was a shooter and now think he was a patsy.

Y'all also know I believe there was involvement in the assassination by persons supporting Castro.

But obviously I do not think LHO had a face-to-face meeting with Castro.

But is anyone aware of such a document? If it exists I suspect it would be somewhere, e.g. on the MFF website.

[William Kelly]

Does anyone have any information on the book:

"Disinformation, Misinformation and the Conspiracy to Kill JFK Exposed" by Armond Moss - Archon Books - June 198? -

Thanks,

BK