Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I do not believe there is a factual basis for asserting that Bringuier was under such tight CIA control that he would not go public with that information without first checking with his CIA handler or case officer.

The relevant facts in evidence are as follows [my emphasis added]:

By the admission of its own former leaders,
the Cuban Student Directorate was
totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963.
Without the money provided by Joannides there would have been no delegation of Cuban students in New Orleans with the time to confront Oswald. There would have been no money for their press release to the local papers calling for an investigation of his pro-Castro ways. There would have been no tape recording of his remarks on a local radio station. There would have been no money for the Directorate's phone calls to Clare Booth Luce and the New York Times on the night of November 22, 1963.
There would have been no money for the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro,
and perhaps no post-assassination war scare. The fact that
the Directorate's leaders felt obliged to call Joannides on November 22, 1963
is mostly evidence of how seriously they took his guidance.

CIA held the purse strings. CIA provided all the funding. CIA ran the Cuban Student Directorate, period.

And your case to the contrary consists of...?

Well, you don't have any case at all, do you?

Ashton Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello Gene,

Thanks for your reasoned response.

As someone versed in physics, have you ever looked at the ballistics, acoustics, etc. in which such science comes into play?

BK

Bill:

The acoustics are not my expertise... while I understand the basic concepts, the available "evidence" seems thin and the sound analysis was debated during HSCA hearings (with two schools of thought prevailing but no compelling bottom line). I've no conclusions in this regard, other than the shooter's trick of "canyon shoot" was at play that day in the Plaza. So it was hard to follow the sources and number of shots, especially if silencers were utilized. Plus, it appears there was a simultaneous volley that made it very difficult to correlate head movement and shot direction.

Regarding ballistics, again the evidence trail seems "spoiled" or distorted, and therefore difficult to reconstruct and form any meaningful conclusions. Dr. Alvarez and splatter is interesting, but again that's very specialized. My interests don't run in either of these two areas. Plus, I have no practical experience in rifle techniques and sniper skills. - Gene

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashton Gray wrote:

CIA held the purse strings. CIA provided all the funding. CIA ran the Cuban Student Directorate, period.

And your case to the contrary consists of...?

Well, you don't have any case at all, do you?

What a ridiculous assertion, Mr. Gray. As knowledgeable as you clearly are, are you not aware that Bringuier stated he wrote the ad without CIA approval? So how can you dare assert that I have no case. You may call Bringuier a xxxx if you want but it is you who have no evidence to support that proposition.

Is it not logical that Cuban exiles would wante to carpe diem to blame the assassination on Castro given Oswald's apparent ties to Cuba?

And even if the CIA had approved the idea after the assassination is no evidence whatsoever of CIA complicity in the assassination itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not believe there is a factual basis for asserting that Bringuier was under such tight CIA control that he would not go public with that information without first checking with his CIA handler or case officer.

The relevant facts in evidence are as follows [my emphasis added]:

By the admission of its own former leaders,
the Cuban Student Directorate was
totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963.
Without the money provided by Joannides there would have been no delegation of Cuban students in New Orleans with the time to confront Oswald. There would have been no money for their press release to the local papers calling for an investigation of his pro-Castro ways. There would have been no tape recording of his remarks on a local radio station. There would have been no money for the Directorate's phone calls to Clare Booth Luce and the New York Times on the night of November 22, 1963.
There would have been no money for the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro,
and perhaps no post-assassination war scare. The fact that
the Directorate's leaders felt obliged to call Joannides on November 22, 1963
is mostly evidence of how seriously they took his guidance.

CIA held the purse strings. CIA provided all the funding. CIA ran the Cuban Student Directorate, period.

And your case to the contrary consists of...?

Well, you don't have any case at all, do you?

Ashton Gray

What a ridiculous assertion, Mr. Gray. As knowledgeable as you clearly are, are you not aware that Bringuier stated he wrote the ad without CIA approval?

Why, no, Mr. Gratz. I am aware of no such thing. In fact, since you've asserted it, I demand that you either:

A.
Post the actual quote by Bringuier stating "he wrote the ad" [meaning the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro that I posted earlier in this thread] "without CIA approval," or,

B.
Retract your claim and admit publically that your claim was false and misleading.

So how can you dare assert that I have no case.

I don't assert, Mr. Gratz; I observe. And what I observed is that you have no case at all. And what I still observe is that you have no case at all.

See A. and B. immediately above.

Is it not logical that Cuban exiles would wante to carpe diem to blame the assassination on Castro given Oswald's apparent ties to Cuba?

It is the apotheosis of illogic, since Oswald had no "ties" whatsoever to either Cuba or Castro, apparent or otherwise.

First you claim a statement by Bringuier that does not exist. Now you claim for Oswald "apparent ties to Cuba" that do not and did not ever exist.

As I observed earlier: You have no case at all. You're making it up as you go. It's an inelegant thing to have to watch.

And even if the CIA had approved the idea after the assassination is no evidence whatsoever of CIA complicity in the assassination itself.

Nor is it any evidence whatsoever that CIA wasn't complicit in the assassination itself. You have discovered a vacuous null. Congratulations.

With every statement you make you amplify my observation of the obvious: you have no case at all.

Ashton Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Gray wrote:

It is the apotheosis of illogic, since Oswald had no "ties" whatsoever to either Cuba or Castro, apparent or otherwise.

Huh? No apparent ties? He created the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Per Gerry Hemming, he was trying to get into Cuba as eartly as 1959. He (at least apparently) visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. He (at least apparently) told Marina he wanted to hijack a plane from Key West to get to Cuba.

Perhaps you were unaware of these apparent ties, Mr. Gray?

By the way, what is your basis for this assertion:

The fact that the Directorate's leaders felt obliged to call Joannides on November 22, 1963 is mostly evidence of how seriously they took his guidance.

I say that note in the sarcastic tone with which you challenge me (why is that, by the way?) but because I am seriously interested in the facts and the truth. This must be a relatively new fact since the HSCA had no idea Joannides was working with the DRE. So who from the DRE called Joannides on November 22, and at what time, and how do you know of such call?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant facts in evidence are as follows [my emphasis added]:

By the admission of its own former leaders,
the Cuban Student Directorate was
totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963.
Without the money provided by Joannides there would have been no delegation of Cuban students in New Orleans with the time to confront Oswald. There would have been no money for their press release to the local papers calling for an investigation of his pro-Castro ways. There would have been no tape recording of his remarks on a local radio station. There would have been no money for the Directorate's phone calls to Clare Booth Luce and the New York Times on the night of November 22, 1963.
There would have been no money for the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro,
and perhaps no post-assassination war scare. The fact that
the Directorate's leaders felt obliged to call Joannides on November 22, 1963
is mostly evidence of how seriously they took his guidance.

CIA held the purse strings. CIA provided all the funding. CIA ran the Cuban Student Directorate, period.

And your case to the contrary consists of...?

Well, you don't have any case at all, do you?

Ashton Gray

What a ridiculous assertion, Mr. Gray. As knowledgeable as you clearly are, are you not aware that Bringuier stated he wrote the ad without CIA approval?

Why, no, Mr. Gratz. I am aware of no such thing. In fact, since you've asserted it, I demand that you either:

A.
Post the actual quote by Bringuier stating "he wrote the ad" [meaning the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro that I posted earlier in this thread] "without CIA approval," or,

B.
Retract your claim and admit publically that your claim was false and misleading.

So how can you dare assert that I have no case.

I don't assert, Mr. Gratz; I observe. And what I observed is that you have no case at all. And what I still observe is that you have no case at all.

See A. and B. immediately above.

Is it not logical that Cuban exiles would wante to carpe diem to blame the assassination on Castro given Oswald's apparent ties to Cuba?

It is the apotheosis of illogic, since Oswald had no "ties" whatsoever to either Cuba or Castro, apparent or otherwise.

Huh? No apparent ties?

FLUNK! You evaded A. and B. above. That evasion now stands as public record of your stipulation to B. above: that your claim was false and misleading, and that you retract it.

So now you're on record as having claimed a statement by Bringuier that does not exist. And as I said above, you claim for Oswald "apparent ties to Cuba" that do not and did not ever exist.

He created the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

FLUNK! The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was based in New York City, not in Cuba. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was run by Americans, not Cubans. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee had as some of its founding members people such as Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, and Jean Paul Sartre, and according to the New York Times of 20 November 1960 had "5,000 paid-up members in the United States" as of that date—not one of whom has ever been accused of having had "ties to Cuba." Neither did Oswald.

As I observed earlier: You have no case at all.

Per Gerry Hemming, he was trying to get into Cuba as eartly as 1959.

FLUNK! Undocumented anecdotal hearsay crap in the first place (Hemming saying what he'd heard from "the coordinator of the 26th of July Movement") that could not have been known to Bringuier or the Cuban Student Directorate at any relevant time even if it had any hint of truth to it. It's utterly irrelevant to the publication put out by the Cuban Student Directorate immediately after the assassination—funded by the CIA—as BLACK PROPAGANDA to create a completely phony link between Oswald and Castro that never existed.

As I observed earlier: You have no case at all.

He (at least apparently) visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico City.

FLUNK! Never proven, hotly contested, with contradicted FBI evidence of record that the person at issue was not Oswald—all of which is rendered entirely null and void in your excuse for a "case" by the fact that it could not have been known to Bringuier or the Cuban Student Directorate at any relevant time. It could not possibly have had anything at all to do with their BLACK PROPAGANDA smear rag on Oswald—funded by the CIA—immediately after the assassination.

As I observed earlier: You have no case at all.

He (at least apparently) told Marina he wanted to hijack a plane from Key West to get to Cuba.

FLUNK! Hearsay crap, and even that rendered entirely null and void to your so-called "case" by the fact that it could not have been known to Bringuier or the Cuban Student Directorate at any relevant time. It could not possibly have had anything at all to do with their BLACK PROPAGANDA smear rag on Oswald—funded by the CIA—immediately after the assassination.

You got nothing.

Ashton Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wrote:

FLUNK! You evaded A. and B. above. That evasion now stands as public record of your stipulation to B. above: that your claim was false and misleading, and that you retract it.

So now you're on record as having claimed a statement by Bringuier that does not exist. And as I said above, you claim for Oswald "apparent ties to Cuba" that do not and did not ever exist.

SORRY. IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. I CANNOT FIND A CITATION TO THAT IN A MATTER OF TWO HOURS WHEN I AM AWAY FROM MY REFERENCES AND I AM ALSO WORKING ON SOMETHING QUITE IMPORTANT FOR FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE CASE.

I ALSO NOTE THAT I CHALLENGED YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THE BASIS FOR YOUR ASSERTION THAT ANYONE FROM DRE CALLED JOANNIDES ON NOVEMBER 22nd. YOU HAVE YET TO REPLY TO THAT. BY YOUR LOGIC, YOU MUST HAVE MADE THAT UP. BUT I WILL ALLOW YOU TIME TO RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST.

You wrote:

FLUNK! The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was based in New York City, not in Cuba. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was run by Americans, not Cubans. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee had as some of its founding members people such as Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, and Jean Paul Sartre, and according to the New York Times of 20 November 1960 had "5,000 paid-up members in the United States" as of that date—not one of whom has ever been accused of having had "ties to Cuba." Neither did Oswald.

Talk about a distinction without a difference! The FPCC Committee was clearly pro-Castro and pro-Cuba. The whole point about Oswald's "apparent" ties tro Cuba was that he could be publicly linked as a Castro supporter. One could not deny that someone had loose "ties" to Moscow, the headquarters of Communism, if one belonged to the US Communist Party. What in the world is your point, that Oswald could not be portrayed as loyal to Castro because the FPCC was based in New York rather than Havana? Many of the founding members of the FPCC made trips to Cuba. Oswald's establishment of a NO chapter of the FPCC clearly (whether truly or not is a different issue) linked him in the public eye as pro-Castro. Do you deny that?

I REPEAT MY REQUEST THAT YOU BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION THAT LEADERS (YOU PUT IT IN PLURAL) OF DRE CALLED JOANNIDES ON NOVEMBER 22nd. IT IS EASY TO WONDER ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO NO ONE EVEN KNEW OF JOANNIDES' ROLE IN THE CIA'S ANTI-CASTRO EFFORTS. SO THIS CERTAINLY CANNOT COME FROM ANY HSCA TESTIMONY. IT CANNOT COME FROM JOANNIDES SINCE HE IS DEAD. SO WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU GET IT FROM?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Gray:

The more think about it the more I think your own posts re LHO's "tenuous" ties to Cuba/Castro refute your own central thesis.

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.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites
I REPEAT MY REQUEST THAT YOU BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION THAT LEADERS (YOU PUT IT IN PLURAL) OF DRE CALLED JOANNIDES ON NOVEMBER 22nd. IT IS EASY TO WONDER ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO NO ONE EVEN KNEW OF JOANNIDES' ROLE IN THE CIA'S ANTI-CASTRO EFFORTS. SO THIS CERTAINLY CANNOT COME FROM ANY HSCA TESTIMONY. IT CANNOT COME FROM JOANNIDES SINCE HE IS DEAD. SO WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU GET IT FROM?

Sigh....

Had you read all 26 of the Commission's volumes at any time after they were published, you would have discovered the name Jose Lanusa [also Llanusa and Lanuza], a name that has sporadically recurred in JFK assassination literature since.

Had you paid attention, you would already know the answer to the question you now shout at Ashton Gray. The following is from a Jefferson Morley article, published more than six years ago, retrievable at:

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/REVELATION1963.html

To wit:

What exactly did George Joannides do on November 22, 1963, when news of Oswald's arrest spread? Few records exist to provide an answer.

In 1978 José Antonio Lanuza told Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, how the DRE reacted to Kennedy's murder. On November 22, 1963, Lanuza was coordinator of the DRE's North American chapters. When he heard the news stories linking Oswald to the shooting, he remembered delegate Carlos Bringuier's reports from New Orleans and went to DRE headquarters to check his files. There he found Bringuier's letters about the confrontations with Oswald, along with tapes of the WDSU radio debate. The group's leaders gathered, he said, and one of them -- Salvat, Fernandez-Rocha, or Borja -- "made the first outside call about the discovered material." That call, he said, went to the DRE's case officer at the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami.

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.

Meanwhile Oswald was in jail in Dallas, denying he had shot Kennedy. "I'm a patsy," he told reporters.

Joannides had only to read the next morning's newspaper to know his assets in the DRE were exerting a powerful influence on the coverage of the president's murder. Carlos Bringuier's story appeared in the Miami Herald: "Oswald Tried to Spy on Anti-Castro Exile Group." The story also made the Washington Post: "Castro Foe Details Infiltration Effort."

You say that "THIS CERTAINLY CANNOT COME FROM ANY HSCA TESTIMONY," yet as the piece above details, it was HSCA's Fonzi who trolled these waters. Another strike against your something less than intrepid sleuthing.

Lest you suspect that Lanusa's memory is unreliable, I will attempt to append a document illustrating that his recollection is correct, from CIA's own cache.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant facts in evidence are as follows [my emphasis added]:

By the admission of its own former leaders,
the Cuban Student Directorate was
totally dependent on CIA funding in 1963.
Without the money provided by Joannides there would have been no delegation of Cuban students in New Orleans with the time to confront Oswald. There would have been no money for their press release to the local papers calling for an investigation of his pro-Castro ways. There would have been no tape recording of his remarks on a local radio station. There would have been no money for the Directorate's phone calls to Clare Booth Luce and the New York Times on the night of November 22, 1963.
There would have been no money for the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro,
and perhaps no post-assassination war scare. The fact that
the Directorate's leaders felt obliged to call Joannides on November 22, 1963
is mostly evidence of how seriously they took his guidance.

CIA held the purse strings. CIA provided all the funding. CIA ran the Cuban Student Directorate, period.

And your case to the contrary consists of...?

Well, you don't have any case at all, do you?

Ashton Gray

What a ridiculous assertion, Mr. Gray. As knowledgeable as you clearly are, are you not aware that Bringuier stated he wrote the ad without CIA approval?

Why, no, Mr. Gratz. I am aware of no such thing. In fact, since you've asserted it, I demand that you either:

A.
Post the actual quote by Bringuier stating "he wrote the ad" [meaning the broadsheet with photos of Oswald and Castro that I posted earlier in this thread] "without CIA approval," or,

B.
Retract your claim and admit publically that your claim was false and misleading.

So how can you dare assert that I have no case.

I don't assert, Mr. Gratz; I observe. And what I observed is that you have no case at all. And what I still observe is that you have no case at all.

See A. and B. immediately above.

Is it not logical that Cuban exiles would wante to carpe diem to blame the assassination on Castro given Oswald's apparent ties to Cuba?

It is the apotheosis of illogic, since Oswald had no "ties" whatsoever to either Cuba or Castro, apparent or otherwise.

Huh? No apparent ties?

FLUNK! You evaded A. and B. above. That evasion now stands as public record of your stipulation to B. above: that your claim was false and misleading, and that you retract it.

So now you're on record as having claimed a statement by Bringuier that does not exist.

SORRY. IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. I CANNOT FIND A CITATION TO THAT IN A MATTER OF TWO HOURS WHEN I AM AWAY FROM MY REFERENCES AND I AM ALSO WORKING ON SOMETHING QUITE IMPORTANT FOR FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE CASE.

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.

This is two times you've followed that exact same pattern just in this one thread, and it's entirely consistent with the kind of murderous informational land mines you've planted all over this forum to create as much mayhem as possible for the thousands of unwary who come here trying to find the truth.

It's exactly what you did on page one of this same thread when you claimed falsely that Hunt had been in Cuba in July of 1960. When I called you on it you weasled the same way, claiming you'd have to find a cite. Of course you never did, because fiction doesn't leave a paper trail, and you are willfully posting fiction after fiction after fiction into an educational forum and misrepresenting it as fact—perfect sabotage of an informational forum.

It is an utterly debased and perverse and extremely destructive activity.

And now you've gone all hysterical and started shouting in bold all-caps because twice in one thread I've called you out on your malicious fictions.

I ALSO NOTE THAT I CHALLENGED YOU TO DEMONSTRATE THE BASIS FOR YOUR ASSERTION THAT ANYONE FROM DRE CALLED JOANNIDES ON NOVEMBER 22nd. YOU HAVE YET TO REPLY TO THAT. BY YOUR LOGIC, YOU MUST HAVE MADE THAT UP. BUT I WILL ALLOW YOU TIME TO RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST.

Listen up and listen up good, hysteria boy, because I'm only going to say this once: I ain't your handmaiden to do your fact fetching for you. I have already posted a link to the cited source at least twice in this very thread, and if you're too ignorant or lazy to check facts before you make a grand fool of yourself, that's your problem, not mine.

Here's a clue for the clueless: the Cuban Student Directorate leader who by his own admission made the call to Joannides on 22 November 1963 is Tony Lanusa.

And now, for your repeated knowing and willful sabotage of this forum with whole-cloth fictions, as inarguably proven in this thread, you get a free, all-expenses-paid one-way trip to the Twit File:

<PLONK!>

Ashton Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites
I REPEAT MY REQUEST THAT YOU BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION THAT LEADERS (YOU PUT IT IN PLURAL) OF DRE CALLED JOANNIDES ON NOVEMBER 22nd. IT IS EASY TO WONDER ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO NO ONE EVEN KNEW OF JOANNIDES' ROLE IN THE CIA'S ANTI-CASTRO EFFORTS. SO THIS CERTAINLY CANNOT COME FROM ANY HSCA TESTIMONY. IT CANNOT COME FROM JOANNIDES SINCE HE IS DEAD. SO WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU GET IT FROM?

Sigh....

Had you read all 26 of the Commission's volumes at any time after they were published, you would have discovered the name Jose Lanusa [also Llanusa and Lanuza], a name that has sporadically recurred in JFK assassination literature since.

Had you paid attention, you would already know the answer to the question you now shout at Ashton Gray. The following is from a Jefferson Morley article, published more than six years ago, retrievable at:

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/REVELATION1963.html

To wit:

What exactly did George Joannides do on November 22, 1963, when news of Oswald's arrest spread? Few records exist to provide an answer.

In 1978 José Antonio Lanuza told Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, how the DRE reacted to Kennedy's murder. On November 22, 1963, Lanuza was coordinator of the DRE's North American chapters. When he heard the news stories linking Oswald to the shooting, he remembered delegate Carlos Bringuier's reports from New Orleans and went to DRE headquarters to check his files. There he found Bringuier's letters about the confrontations with Oswald, along with tapes of the WDSU radio debate. The group's leaders gathered, he said, and one of them -- Salvat, Fernandez-Rocha, or Borja -- "made the first outside call about the discovered material." That call, he said, went to the DRE's case officer at the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami.

It's even worse than that, Robert: the article that I've already cited several times in this thread, What Jane Roman Said, Part 6, says unequivocally:

"One of the Directorate's former leaders, Tony Lanusa, a Miami businessman, says he called 'Howard'
[cover name for CIA's Joannides]
within minutes of the news of Oswald's arrest on November 22, 1963."

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashton,

This is a continuation of the post immediately above—a chronology of April 1963 centered on the 18 April 1963 distribution of the "Act of God" propaganda leaflet. The first part of this two-part chronology ended with that and other events of 18 April 1963. Picking up the next day:

Friday, 19 April 1963

George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt leave Dallas, Texas for Washington, D.C. [NOTE: See entry for 20 April 1963 putting De Mohrenschildt in Washington. From there, the couple will travel also to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—where the wife of James McCord recently has traveled via Dallas—and to New York City.]

• On the same day, Lee Harvey Oswald purportedly writes a letter to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York, requesting literature and announcing he has already distributed Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlets in Dallas. In the letter, Oswald essentially is begging for a free hand-out of the hand-outs, saying "I do not like to ask for something for nothing but I am unemployed." [NOTE: Contrast this with Marina Oswald's claims in letter of 27 April 1963 (see), saying that "we have money for about two months."]

• CIA's Ted Shackley is again in touch with William Pawley and others developing plans for Operation Red Cross/Crypt.

Saturday, 20 April 1963

According to a CIA memo, George De Mohrenschildt meets with someone in Washington, D.C. on this date, but the name of the person he met with is blacked out in the memo.

• One the same day, Ruth Hyde Paine is with Lee and Marina Oswald at the Oswald's Neely Street apartment, purportedly going on a "picnic" with them to a nearby park.

To your April timeline, you could also add this:

William Harvey was in Miami and Plantation Key, Florida chartering a boat "for ops purposes", buying dinner for 2 on the 17th, (himself and someone he called an "unofficial advisor"), buying dinner for himself and 2 "unofficial advisors" on the 20th, and staying for 3 days at the Eden Roc hotel in Miami. The whole time he was charging expenses to the ZRRIFLE program. on the 20th, a ZRRIFLE termination payment of $1,000 was made.

This comes from The CIA microfilm collection, reel 14, Folder L from pages 38 on.

Some say that Harvey was meeting with Johnny Roselli and either QJWIN or Jean Rene Souetre.

Steve Thomas
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashton,
This is a continuation of the post immediately above—a chronology of April 1963 centered on the 18 April 1963 distribution of the "Act of God" propaganda leaflet. The first part of this two-part chronology ended with that and other events of 18 April 1963. Picking up the next day:

Friday, 19 April 1963

George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt leave Dallas, Texas for Washington, D.C. [NOTE: See entry for 20 April 1963 putting De Mohrenschildt in Washington. From there, the couple will travel also to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—where the wife of James McCord recently has traveled via Dallas—and to New York City.]

• On the same day, Lee Harvey Oswald purportedly writes a letter to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York, requesting literature and announcing he has already distributed Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamphlets in Dallas. In the letter, Oswald essentially is begging for a free hand-out of the hand-outs, saying "I do not like to ask for something for nothing but I am unemployed." [NOTE: Contrast this with Marina Oswald's claims in letter of 27 April 1963 (see), saying that "we have money for about two months."]

• CIA's Ted Shackley is again in touch with William Pawley and others developing plans for Operation Red Cross/Crypt.

Saturday, 20 April 1963

According to a CIA memo, George De Mohrenschildt meets with someone in Washington, D.C. on this date, but the name of the person he met with is blacked out in the memo.

• One the same day, Ruth Hyde Paine is with Lee and Marina Oswald at the Oswald's Neely Street apartment, purportedly going on a "picnic" with them to a nearby park.

To your April timeline, you could also add this:

William Harvey was in Miami and Plantation Key, Florida chartering a boat "for ops purposes", buying dinner for 2 on the 17th, (himself and someone he called an "unofficial advisor"), buying dinner for himself and 2 "unofficial advisors" on the 20th, and staying for 3 days at the Eden Roc hotel in Miami. The whole time he was charging expenses to the ZRRIFLE program. on the 20th, a ZRRIFLE termination payment of $1,000 was made.

This comes from The CIA microfilm collection, reel 14, Folder L from pages 38 on.

Some say that Harvey was meeting with Johnny Roselli and either QJWIN or Jean Rene Souetre.

Steve Thomas

Excellent, Steve. Thanks very much. It's going right into the database.

Ashton
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!

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.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Gentle reader,

It doesn't matter how many times this question has been answered, Tim

dismisses it as something he just doesn't believe.

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

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

importantly, W. Averell Harriman put a stop to any notion of Soviet

involvement (see Holland's The Assassination Tapes 6:50pm

11/22/63).

I don't have the energy to dig out the quote.

All the Castro-did-it false flag needed was Hoover making a definitive

statement that Castro put the Commie Oswald up to it, and the US

military would have, in the words of Richard Helms, "bombed Cuba back

into the middle ages."

Tim will continue to pretend Talbot got it wrong.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...