The Ultimate USAEC secrets per the JFK hit.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, for one thing Lansdale was not really a ranking CIA officer. It is true that he was CIA Chief of Base in Saigon for a time and that he held significant political action positions in SE Asia. If anything he was much higher up in terms of his standing with JFK than within the CIA and JFK actually tried to move him up to a major position in South Viet Nam, only to be dramatically opposed by the CIA senior officers, State Department and the Joint Chiefs. In fact once JFK had put him in charge of Mongoose Lansdale really had no supporters in Washington other than JFK and possibly RFK.... All of this is detailed in the histories that deal with Lansdale - and some good books on Vietnam. I consolidate a good deal of it in Shadow Warfare. I'm not going into the Lansdale in Dallas thing but first off, Lansdale was not in any sort of chain of command for the CIA in 1963, he had been isolated a good deal by being selected and supported by JFK and because of that he really was not trusted by the Chiefs, the top CIA guys or the top State guys. You will find all of this in history books outside JFK works.

I think you said you had purchased NEXUS and if so you will find out the clear chain of CIA officers that I propose were involved - and more importantly how they were involved - starting with Angleton, then through Harvey, then down to Morales and further down to people like Robinson and possibly Sforza. To what extent Angleton talked about JFK as a security risk and the need to do something about him with Dulles will never be known - and given the standard practices of those people, the words they used would have been very vague. Angleton might talk about JFK as a risk, by the time the conversation gets carried to Miami by Harvey and he and Morales are talking it would get much more definitive....in assassination directives people like Dulles always said "eliminate" and by the time it got down the chain the translation would be made to "kill".

With apologies for repeating myself, SWHT done in 2010, is a bottoms up study. NEXUS, done two years later is tops down and much more tightly focused on CIA assassination practices and how that translates into the murder of JFK. SWHT is context and presents some 12 or more years of background research, NEXUS is how I think the conspiracy jelled and was carried out.

-- Larry

Larry, I'm aware that General Lansdale was a US General, and not a CIA Agent -- although he served in the CIA for years, and he was also in a position to know about CIA activities and to give CIA assets orders (e.g. Colonel Fletcher Prouty).

I name him as a JFK murder plotter strictly because Fletcher Prouty clearly identifies him as a JFK murder plotter. No matter how close he was to the Kennedys (which was very close) the facts told by Fletcher Prouty tell us the inner truth about Lansdale.

I remember the story of Lansdale from your NEXUS (2012), Larry, yet despite all that, the claims of Fletcher Prouty win the hand.

So, I agree that Lansdale was not in the official CIA chain-of-command, but he did command Fletcher Prouty, who worked within the CIA on a regular basis. It is precisely this sort of unofficial authority that I seek to explore in my theory.

It seems to me that what I explore -- the unofficial story, and the street-asset story -- plays a lesser role in your methodology.

Now I'll review NEXUS to focus more intently upon CIA Officers, James Jesus Angleton, William Harvey and David Morales.

It's certain that David Morales was a JFK murder plotter, because he admitted this himself.

William Harvey was furious with JFK over the Bay of Pigs and Harvey even sent mercenary Raiders into Cuba to spite JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis! Then, after that Cuban Missile Crisis stunt, RFK sent William Harvey to Italy forever, where Harvey reportedly drank himself to death. So, yes Larry, I agree that Harvey is very high on the suspect list. Almost certain (but without a confession, to the best of my knowledge). Yet at the same time, his anger with JFK and RFK make him less of an Official CIA plotter, than a rogue Agent with vengeance in mind. I think the case of William Harvey plays into my theory very smoothly.

As for James Jesus Angleton, he is clearly part of the cover-up -- but I sharply distinguish between the murder of JFK and its cover-up. These were done by two different groups with widely different goals. So, I need more proof if I'm to blame Angleton. Yes, he knew a lot about the Mexico City episode that he kept secret -- but that proves almost nothing unless one also heaps rumors and innuendos into the Mexico City episode. I'll keep an open mind, though, and explore this further within NEXUS.

You probably also suspect David Atlee Phillips (aka Maurice Bishop) who was seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in the last half of 1963. I do, too, but I still need more proof. Coincidence is not enough, especially when one sharply separates the JFK murder from the JFK cover-up the way I do.

As for Allen Dulles himself -- of course in 1963 he wasn't a member of the CIA at all -- but on the outside looking in. It is possible that he was involved -- but far from proven, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I think you could probably wear down the most energetic poster - and that's not me - so I'll just stay with suggestions. My main suggestion is that you need to do some background reading on some of the people you discuss, such as Lansdale, outside the JFK literature. You also need to really understand the organizations that people like Lansdale and Prouty worked for - particular the SACSA function within the Joint Chiefs (Special Assistant for Counter Insurgency and Special Activities). I cover that in great detail in Shadow Warfare but that's a big book, you might try BlackOps Vietnam by Robert Gillespie as an alternative. You really do need to investigate more deeply in regard to the claims about Lansdale - and for that matter, the idea that if he was in Dallas he was there assisting a conspiracy rather than the opposite. If you do your homework I think that you will find that in 1963 Lansdale was taking no orders from anybody in the CIA and for that matter the top chain of CIA officers were trying to get the man retired early rather than having JFK keep promoting him for a key position as COS or even Ambassador to Vietnam. I'd refer you to John Prado's excellent histories including The President's Secret Wars for that sort of background.

I'd also suggest you read more about Prouty, in particular read his extended interview with the ARRB. I put a copy in a CD collection available from Lancer but you should probably be able to find it online by now.

As far as Mexico City, surely by this time you have read Bill Simpich's new work which is all document based, we are way past rumors and innuendo now.

-- Larry

Edited July 16, 2014 by Larry Hancock

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - is Angleton's obvious running of Oswald, ie dividing his CIA file into several components and keeping the full story to himself and a few trusted associates not enough to disabuse you of the notion that only low level CIA functionaries and operatives were possibly involved in JFK's assassination? Is it conceivable to you that Bannister and Walker answered to higher authority when they participated in sheep dipping Oswald? The CIA's fingerprints are all over Oswald, and they hid it from every investigation and continue to hide it now.

[Paul Trejo]

...I'll just stay with suggestions. My main suggestion is that you need to do some background reading on some of the people you discuss, such as Lansdale, outside the JFK literature. You also need to really understand the organizations that people like Lansdale and Prouty worked for - particular the SACSA function within the Joint Chiefs (Special Assistant for Counter Insurgency and Special Activities). I cover that in great detail in Shadow Warfare but that's a big book, you might try BlackOps Vietnam by Robert Gillespie as an alternative.

You really do need to investigate more deeply in regard to the claims about Lansdale - and for that matter, the idea that if he was in Dallas he was there assisting a conspiracy rather than the opposite. If you do your homework I think that you will find that in 1963 Lansdale was taking no orders from anybody in the CIA and for that matter the top chain of CIA officers were trying to get the man retired early rather than having JFK keep promoting him for a key position as COS or even Ambassador to Vietnam. I'd refer you to John Prado's excellent histories including The President's Secret Wars for that sort of background.

I'd also suggest you read more about Prouty, in particular read his extended interview with the ARRB. I put a copy in a CD collection available from Lancer but you should probably be able to find it online by now.

As far as Mexico City, surely by this time you have read Bill Simpich's new work which is all document based, we are way past rumors and innuendo now.

-- Larry

As usual, Larry, I appreciate your academic sign-posts.

You're surprising me with your suggestion that General Edward Lansdale might not be a plotter in the JFK murder -- despite Colonel Fletcher Prouty's clear naming of Lansdale in his surprise assignment at the South Pole instead of protecting JFK in Dallas -- which seems very damning to me -- Prouty was so close to the action.

Yet, I'll keep an open mind. Fletcher Prouty is a key source for me -- as he was a key source for Jim Garrison and for Oliver Stone, yet I'll suspend judgment about Fletcher Prouty and General Edward Lansdale until I've read the citations that you named, Larry.

I didn't expect to read your suggestion that Edward Lansdale was in Dallas on 11/22/1963 trying to stop a JFK murder plot. I've just never read that before in the past 20 years of my JFK research.

You've always got surprises, Larry.

Finally, I've formed some strong opinions about Oswald and Mexico City after reading the 2003 book by Edwin Lopez: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City. But I'll keep an open mind and read Bill Simpich's new work, as you suggested.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - is Angleton's obvious running of Oswald, ie dividing his CIA file into several components and keeping the full story to himself and a few trusted associates not enough to disabuse you of the notion that only low level CIA functionaries and operatives were possibly involved in JFK's assassination? Is it conceivable to you that Bannister and Walker answered to higher authority when they participated in sheep dipping Oswald? The CIA's fingerprints are all over Oswald, and they hid it from every investigation and continue to hide it now.

Well, Paul B., I'll engage this discussion. I simply don't find enough documented evidence to convince me that senior CIA Agent James Jesus Angleton was "running Oswald" (and I take that phrase to mean that Angleton was controlling the subplot to make Oswald into the patsy for the JFK murder).

Yes, we know from CIA documents that the CIA was interested in possibly interviewing Lee Harvey Oswald for a job at the CIA, but that never really materialized. IMHO, Oswald just had too many faults for the CIA to maintain interest.

However, it did seem to give Oswald a swelled head (just as it gave a swelled head to Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Clay Shaw, Thomas Beckham, and countless others). So there was some CIA interest in Oswald -- but I don't find evidence of "running Oswald."

What I do perceive is that all these CIA wannabes (and a few rogues) tricked Oswald into believing that he was being trained/tested for a job with the CIA all the time he was in New Orleans in the spring and the summer of 1963, including his trip to Mexico.

It seems clear to me that David Atlee Phillips (alias Maurice Bishop) was part of a team to manipulate Oswald to make Oswald believe he was working for the CIA in cooperation with Alpha 66 and its leader, Antonio Veciana. The three of them met in Dallas, according to Veciana, whom I find credible. (I also believe that Loran Hall and Larry Howard, in cooperation with Guy Gabaldon, were working to convince Oswald that he was part of a CIA plot against Castro, and they gave him money to keep him interested -- this is clear from the Harry Dean memoirs.)

Yet IMHO David Atlee Phillips was off the reservation -- he went rogue and was working with other rogues in this manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald specifically to fool Oswald into believing he was working with the official CIA, when these people were all scamming Oswald.

David Phillips did not confess openly to being part of the plot, but he did confess with tears in his eyes to his brother that he was in Dallas on 11/22/1963. So I do think that Phillips was a part of the JFK murder plot.

But that doesn't include James Jesus Angleton.

Even if Angelton said some nasty things about JFK -- that still doesn't prove he was part of a JFK murder plot. While it's true that Angleton played an active role in the COVER-UP, please remember that I separate the JFK murder team from the JFK cover-up team with a giant wedge. These two groups opposed each other, IMHO.

The CIA was part of the cover-up. That's clear. But if we separate the JFK murder from the cover-up, then we can't use the cover-up to make the CIA into JFK murder suspects. We need better evidence.

Nevertheless -- I will grant you that some members of the CIA clearly went ROGUE and strayed from the reservation to act on their own. The culture of secrecy and independence -- and all the cash that flowed like water -- all this was an unhealthy climate in 1963. It was out of control. Even the CIA couldn't control it.

However, Paul B., I'll keep an open mind. If you want to lay out your evidence that James Jesus Angleton was "running Oswald," then I'm all ears. Honestly. I'll take your evidence slow and give it a thorough and open-minded review.

As for Banister and Walker -- they were out of control. By being members of the John Birch Society, which dogmatically believed that sitting US Presidents had been secret Communists -- they showed themselves to be: (1) too damn old and alcohol dependent to think straight; (2) useless to intelligent people in the FBI and CIA; (3) politically ambitious and willing to do absolutely anything for local political power; and (4) completely lacking in loyalty to anybody but themselves.

So, no, they didn't answer to any higher authority than: (a.) the John Birch Society; (b.) the Minutemen; (c.) the White Citizens Councils -- and that is even an over-statement, because Banister and Walker sought to be leaders in all these groups, and not followers.

Their egos, Paul B., were simply too big. Think of the race riots in Ole Miss in 1962. Think of the abuse of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas just weeks before JFK went there. These guys didn't answer to anybody except their own Southern, Confederate values.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

The evidence for Angleton's running Oswald is in the way he divided up Oswald's CIA files. You've read Newman's great study. No one has delved deeper into Oswald and the footprints of intelligence that surround his life, and he concluded, finally, that Angleton was the evil genius who managed to make sure that no one except himself and a few of his counterintelligence staff saw the whole picture. Oswald intersected with CIA operatives, real ones, at every step, and Angleton knew every instance, information which he guarded closely and parsed out carefully. Newman convinced me of this, and it was eye opening. I used to think the operation to kill the president was rogue, but I don't any more, largely as a result of Newman's work. It was Angleton who took possession of Winston Scott's files, who took Mary Pinchot's diary. His background screams fascist. It wasn't hard for me to conclude that Allen Dulles was involved once I realized that Angleton was pulling Oswald's strings.

You know, I understand why you think Walker and Bannister were rogues. Official history generally backs up that belief. But I am not so sure. The FBI and CIA have major assets who are not on their payrolls. I thought that one of the major points of disagreement between you and Ernie was that he trusted the files to tell the story, and just couldn't believe that operations could literally be hidden from view. Ernie believes that everything the FBI does is documented as a matter of policy. I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. So why is it so hard to believe for instance that Bannister might have still been working for elements of the US government after he 'retired'? He was clearly in league with CIA supported anti-Castro groups.

You are right - I am predisposed to see evil at the top of the pyramid, especially the part that is hidden from view. The researchers I have come to appreciate the most have reached similar conclusions.The hardest thing for the research community to face, in my opinion, is that forces within the government killed JFK. They are only rogue in so far as they did not do their dirty work with the foreknowledge of elected officials. But, would you agree, looking at our dysfunctional government today, that perhaps in a way it has always been true that the real power is vested in the unelected government. Congress for instance doesn't write the laws they pass. The laws are written by lawyers whose names we generally don't know, for purposes that don't benefit us.

In a nutshell, you see the JBS running the show, I see the old boy network best defined by groups like Skull and Bones wielding the real power, and funding groups like JBS and Tea Party to confuse the populace. It's not, as you suggested recently, that I have a problem with wealthy people. I have a problem with the sociopaths that create a world based on permanent war, who worship money and power and don't care about the dreams and desires of the rest of us.

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Paul B., John Newman did make a noble effort in his book, OSWALD AND THE CIA (1995, updated 2008) with nearly a thousand pages that reveal many CIA records previously unknown.

However, John Newman has a flaw in his logic, in my opinion, namely, he presumes, without proof, that the Cover-up was done by the same people who murdered JFK.

Given that assumption -- the result of the guesses by John Newman are fairly predictable. As Newman himself admits throughout his work, he offers guesses most of the time, to fill in the many gaps that the CIA documents don't fill.

See, I can even accept Newman's guesswork that Angleton dangled LHO, a 20-year old Marine, in the face of the USSR in 1959 to see if the USSR would grab at him. If not, this would confirm they already had a mole in the USA U2 program.

However, it is going too far to follow Newman in his 2008 Epilogue, which guesses that Oswald went back and forth between the Cuban Embassy and the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, losing his temper along the way, because he was ordered to.

Newman says this was all planned by the CIA plotters of the JFK murder -- that if Oswald called the Soviet Embassy, he would have to talk with the KGB Agent Valery Kostikov, who was known by the CIA to be in charge of assassinations. By recording this call, the CIA would be able to frame Oswald for KGB connections.

But that theory doesn't pan out, Paul B., because the CIA never used that information in making the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, the CIA kept that information Top Secret until the 1980's.

So, John Newman is only guessing. He is probably right to guess than when LHO took a loaded revolver to the Soviet Embassy the next day, that his handler probably told him to do it, to make LHO look really stupid. Newman does not bother to explain, however, why Oswald was so impatient and unruly at the two Embassies in Mexico City.

The most obvious reason, naturally, is that his 'handlers' told him that getting the Visa to Cuba would be easy -- and he was finding out that it wasn't easy. His loyalty to his handlers was his motivation for losing his temper at these allegedly inferior clerks who denied him his allegedly rightful Visa to Cuba.

Oswald's handlers, therefore, were not the CIA, but were Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier in New Orleans. Loran Hall and Larry Howard might be included because they drove Oswald to Mexico City, but they did not need to be part of the New Orleans sheep-dipping plot -- they had their own, separate plot.

Having been assured that Oswald would fail to get a Cuban Visa based on his bogus FPCC street credentials, Loran Hall and Larry Howard played along with Oswald, but offered him a seconday deal "in case the Cuba Visa deal falls through." Namely, after Oswald failed to get his Cuban Visa (as his handlers knew he would) Oswald could then visit Guy Gabaldon in Mexico City (according to Harry Dean) who had $500 for Oswald just for showing up. (Richard Case Nagell attests to the $500 part.)

Guy Gabaldon (says Harry Dean) would pretend to be a CIA officer, and would pretend to offer Oswald YET ANOTHER special CIA project; this time in Dallas. In late September 1963, in Mexico City, Guy Gabaldon handed Oswald $500 (which amounts to $5,000 today adjusted for inflation) and instructed Oswald to wait in Dallas for further instructions. So, that's what Oswald immediately did.

The connection between Guy Gabaldon and ex-General Walker was personally established within the John Birch Society in Southern California at a meeting also attended by Harry Dean.

So, Paul B., the breakdown of Newman's logic about the Mexico City episode is that it is self-contradictory. If the CIA went to all this trouble to frame Oswald in Mexico City, then why did the CIA move heaven and earth to hide all these records as Top Secret for decades?

The best explanation, IMHO, is that the JFK murder was totally separate from the JFK murder cover-up. The CIA was attempting to accomplish something completely different in its tracking of the FPCC and the Mexico City Embassies, and Oswald was not high on their list.

The CIA was interested in Oswald when he was 20 years old, but when he was 22 his many flaws had already disqualified him for further interviews. He was hardly a blip on their radar. On the other hand, the ultra-right-wing in the USA -- always a running danger in this country -- found a totally different role for Lee Harvey Oswald.

That's my reading of Newman, Paul B. If I missed something in his very large book, please remind me, and I'll review that, too.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited July 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, just a few comments below identified by .......

You're surprising me with your suggestion that General Edward Lansdale might not be a plotter in the JFK murder -- despite Colonel Fletcher Prouty's clear naming of Lansdale in his surprise assignment at the South Pole instead of protecting JFK in Dallas -- which seems very damning to me -- Prouty was so close to the action.

......I think you will get a broader view of Prouty and Lansdale's respective day jobs circa 1963 from the references I provided. Both were military officers detailed to support CIA activities at various points in their career but their experiences and roles in 1963 were really quite different. Prouty a SACSA staff position and Lansdale essentially put back there after serving as CIA Chief of Base in Vietnam, then seconded to some high level fact finding missions and ultimately given a presidential appointment to Mongoose by JFK, then referred by JFK to a very high position in Vietnam - either CIA or State Department - and rejected and opposed by everyone else and essentially dumped back into SACSA while they orchestrated his early retirement. You can rise quickly if the president is in your corner but it doesn't make everybody else happy with you, jealousy is a constant.

......as to Prouty's assignment to protect the president, well I suggest you read his voluntary interview with the ARRB and make your own assessment.

Yet, I'll keep an open mind. Fletcher Prouty is a key source for me -- as he was a key source for Jim Garrison and for Oliver Stone, yet I'll suspend judgment about Fletcher Prouty and General Edward Lansdale until I've read the citations that you named, Larry.

I didn't expect to read your suggestion that Edward Lansdale was in Dallas on 11/22/1963 trying to stop a JFK murder plot. I've just never read that before in the past 20 years of my JFK research.

.......its certainly not widely discussed but its based in the possibility that JFK/RFK were warned that there were exiles out to get him as a traitor to their cause. You hear that from Murgado and a couple of others but if you believe JFK was told not to go to Chicago because of the threat Bolden relates, then you have to think about the fact that President's are not told what do without asking some questions....on the order of "why are you cancelling my political appearance in Chicago with no notice...explain that to me". There are several indications that JFK and RFK may have known he was at risk from exiles, that's obvious in all the concerns about the Miami trip. So if you are JFK/RFK and maybe not so sure who to trust...who might look into it for you....who do you trust who knows the guys down in Miami? How about the recent head of Mongoose. Just speculation obviously but there is no doubt JFK was a strong supporter of Lansdale, even after Mongoose.

You've always got surprises, Larry.

.......not that I always make people happy with them of course.....

[Paul Brancato]

Newman's point was that Angleton knew that tying Oswald to Kostikov would guarantee a coverup after the fact.

[Paul Trejo]

Newman's point was that Angleton knew that tying Oswald to Kostikov would guarantee a coverup after the fact.

Yet there was no such real guarantee. The linkage between Oswald the Communist JFK killer, and Kostikov, the Communist KGB assassin -- was exactly what the JFK murder plotters really wanted -- it was their deepest desire -- to link Oswald with the Communists so that the People of the USA would rise up in holy wrath against Cuba, invade Cuba, kill Fidel Castro in revenge for the JFK murder, and then restore the Monroe Doctrine to its rightful place.

This was the demand of the John Birch Society in 1963. It was also stated in Ex-General Edwin Walker's OPEN LETTER TO JFK dated September 1962, which I will share again here:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19620926_EAW_Open_Letter.JPG

It was also the strong desire of the ROGUES in the CIA (almost all of whom were Bay of Pigs survivors) who supported Guy Banister and Edwin Walker (and their JBS connections) to link Oswald with the KGB, and we hear many stories in December 1963 from Johnny Roselli and Frank Sturgis to the press and to their local Congressmen, urging them to consider Oswald as a Communist supporting Fidel Castro through the FPCC, and Attack Cuba Now !

This was their desire. The right-wing and the Mafia and the CIA Rogues all wanted CUBA as their First Prize. JFK was nothing to them. The Vietnam conflict was nothing to them. This was 1963, and they had no idea what 1964 would bring -- and they didn't care -- as long as they got CUBA back in the American orbit.

This is why I emphasize -- the image of a Communist Oswald was constructed by those who wanted JFK murdered to provoke US wrath against Communist Cuba.

It is unlikely that James Jesus Angleton was involved in this plot -- because then he would not have kept top secret all these files that portray Oswald as a Communist. Instead, the CIA does the opposite -- it hides these files. It joins the FBI song and dance about a Lone Nut, and a Lone Gunman. Communists? What Communists?

Somebody went to an extreme length to paint Oswald as a Communist. The fact that the FPCC chapter in New Orleans had only one member, Lee Harvey Oswald (and his alias, which doesn't count), is a very strong confirmation of this theory.

And yet, when the rubber hits the road in the days after the JFK murder, the FBI and CIA choose to call Oswald a Lone Nut. This is hard evidence for my theory that the Cover-up Team was totally different from the JFK murder Team -- they had different goals.

This, then, seems to confirm my theory that the CIA people who were confessedly involved in the JFK murder were ROGUES, while the Official CIA opposed them, and removed their Prize from them. There would be no blaming of Castro. There would be no blaming of the KGB. There would only be one single Lone Nut who had no accomplices.

The past fifty years has proven that Lee Harvey Oswald could never have acted alone. in the JFK murder. That proves that the FBI and CIA and even the Warren Commission knew exactly who the accomplices of Oswald really were.

For fifty years the JFK researchers have presumed that the Cover-up Team acted to protect the JFK murder Team. But they could never explain why the JFK murder Team went through seven months of framing Lee Harvey Oswald as an FPCC Communist -- and then after the JFK murder, Oswald was simply considered a Lone Nut with no accomplices.

Newman does not explain this, either. I hope he is able to use his encyclopedic knowledge to come up with a different Epilogue than his current one in his book, Oswald and the CIA.

The explanation, IMHO, is that the CIA and the FBI and the Warren Commission and LBJ -- all knew who murdered JFK -- but they could not name them, because in naming them they would have started a Civil War -- and that would have led to World War Three. It was a matter of National Security -- exactly as they said.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

What is your explanation for why there was no proper investigation? I know your answer - prevent a civil war.

You immediately conflated Kostikov with Cuba, which had the effect of stopping me from reading the rest. LBJ is on record as saying he could not risk war with the Soviet Union. Your theory as I understand it is that Oswald was actually trying to get to Cuba. I don't believe that for a second. The problem with your theory on Walker and Bannister and the rest is - for me - the story you weave around it, not the principals themselves. They might have been guilty as charged. Its the rest of your scenario, your attempt to wrap in Dean's story and your theory of who Oswald really was, that makes no sense, and you have to do a lot of over reaching and twisting future history to get there. We never did invade Cuba, but the Cold War money machine continued unabated, and with our new stated enemy -terrorism - continues today. We did fight the Vietnam war. And most importantly, we did cover up the conspiracy. I will never believe that we did it to prevent a confrontation with right wing fanatics. Heck, LBJ and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Trejo]

...As far as Mexico City, surely by this time you have read Bill Simpich's new work which is all document based, we are way past rumors and innuendo now.

-- Larry

OK, I've just finished the new book by Bill Simpich, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald (2014).

Bill is very generous to make his new book available to the public free of charge from the Mary Ferrell web site. Aside from his generosity, he's also a great researcher. His exploration of the Mexico City episode of the Lee Harvey Oswald saga is second to none. It's truly excellent.

That said, I want to point out that his theory about Oswald in Mexico City does not cancel my own, but instead can be used to support my theory. Bill Simpich agrees with my theory in many important points. For example:

1. Oswald was extremely foolish in his effort to get an "instant Visa" into Cuba. He'd made no prior preparation, he had no sponsors, he brought no other credentials than his New Orleans street credentials of newspaper clippings showing him to be a (fake) FPCC officer, along with a phony CPUSA card. It should have been super-obvious that the Cuban consulate would see right through his game in a minute, and all but laugh in his face.

2. The foolishness of Oswald to lie to the Cuban consulate and tell them that the USSR consulate already approved their Visa, and then lie to the USSR consulate, telling them the Cuban consulate already approved their Visa, is beyond boldness -- it's just plain stupid. The Cuban and USSR consulates called each other within minutes and confirmed that Oswald was lying to both -- and that was the end of it. .

3. Oswald's shouting match with the Cuban consul was sheer stupidity. As if that would change anybody's mind.

4. Oswald's taking a revolver to the Soviet consul, complaining that the FBI was out to get him, and breaking down in tears -- was also sheer stupidity. He got away with something like that in the USSR in 1959, so maybe that's why he tried it again. It was dumb.

There remain a few differences between the treatment of Bill Simpich regarding Lee Oswald's antics in Mexico City compared with my own treatment. Bill wants to keep open the idea that Oswald wasn't really that stupid, but might have been testing the clerks at the consulates. That's implausible, IMHO.

Bill Simpich also wants to keep open the possibility that it wasn't really Oswald in Mexico City, but a double. That's also implausible, IMHO, not only based on the behavior of Oswald (which was true to form) but also based on a key theory by Bill Simpich, namely, that the CIA modified Oswald's 201 file at CIA HQ when they realized an Oswald impersonation had taken place over their wiretapped telephone system -- twice.

It was Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, all right, and he really was behaving like a total ignoramus. The best explanation that I see isn't the one that Bill Simpich suggests, however. I see that Oswald made a fool of himself in Mexico City because he really and truly believed that the clerks at the Cuban and USSR consulates were easily fooled.

Now, why would Oswald think that? The most likely scenario is the reason he was there in the first place -- he was acting under orders. He was there to sneak into Cuba to participate in some "Mongoose" type of scenario.

Oswald's handlers promised him that by being an officer of the FPCC that he would be welcomed into Cuba with open arms, with no questions asked, and given an instant Visa. He believed it -- which is proved by the fact that when the consulates ran their normal SOP which squashed Oswald's dream like a bug, Oswald couldn't accept it.

He demanded to speak to the Cuban consulate manager -- and when the manager repeated the rules, Oswald lost his temper and was kicked out.

Then Oswald in desperation went to the USSR with a revolver, a sad story and tears. What a maroon. But his behavior is consistent with a naïve young man who is following instructions, but his instructions were faulty.

It is therefore very clear who gave Oswald his instructions -- it wasn't the CIA. As Jim Garrison in 1968 painstakingly showed the world, it was Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier. They very carefully framed Oswald from April 1963 through September 1963, getting him on film, radio and TV, as a Communist leader of the FPCC.

Why did Oswald cooperate with his framers? Because they promised him fame and fortune, obviously. Clay Shaw was very rich and ensured that Oswald always had spending money. (We are assured of this from Thomas Beckham and Dean Andrews.)

Oswald was probably promised a lot of money for his Mexico City caper. His plan was to get a Cuba Visa (and the USSR Visa was only a ruse to get the Cuba Visa) and then meet a team of assassins in Cuba to assassinate Fidel Castro -- escape -- and return to the USA for a fat payroll and a parade -- and maybe a chance at being elected "Prime Minister of the USA" as he told Marina.

New Orleans was a stressful time for Oswald. Richard Case Nagell told Oswald personally that if he ever got to Mexico City that Nagell himself would shoot Oswald dead. Oswald worried about getting to Cuba some other way -- perhaps by hi-jacking an airplane (as he told Marina and also Ron Lewis).

In any case, Oswald successfully completed his mission to sheep-dip himself as an FPCC officer, and had "credentials" in newspaper, radio and TV. So he felt ready to go to Mexico City for this (phony) CIA mission.

It is absolutely certain that Banister, Shaw and Ferrie knew for a fact that Oswald would fail in his mission to get an instant Visa to Cuba. They were probably laughing their heads off back in New Orleans while Oswald was in Mexico City. But Oswald played his role faithfully, to the best of his ability. Naturally he failed to get his instant Visa, and he was totally unaware that he was now totally framed as a Communist.

Now -- getting back to the theory of Bill Simpich -- he reveals that somebody -- probably in the CIA, probably David Morales (a CIA rogue acting on his own with his small team) chose to rattle the CIA by threatening their sophisticated wiretap operation in Mexico City by impersonating Oswald and Duran in telephone calls between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate.

Morales was successful and created a mole-hunt in the CIA, in which the CIA would investigate its own people to find out who was impersonating Oswald. Based on this mole-hunt, they would also camouflage Oswald's 201 file. This was (according to Bill Simpich) the payoff for David Morales. Now Morales could blackmail the CIA says Simpich.

I say Simpich did some ground-breaking work by uncovering the CIA mole-hunt, the players and the twin 10/10 memos that emerged from it, which prove Simpich's case for a mole-hunt and the camouflage of the Oswald 201 file. His discovery is outstanding, and I agree that every new theory about Mexico City must now take the twin 10/10 memos into consideration.

Having said that, I don't believe that Simpich fully proved his case that Morales intended to blackmail the CIA into hiding all its Oswald records. There are still too many gaps.

The case against Clay Shaw brought by Jim Garrison also remains mandatory for any theory about Lee Harvey Oswald and his Mexico City episode.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

You are simply put, incorrigible. You are unable to imagine perfidy at the top of the national security food chain. Every time a CIA official, such as Morales, is obviously implicated in the conspiracy, you assert that the rogue operation goes no higher. Why? Morales is in the middle of this, but the files, and the pictures, prove he was no rogue. Oswald was taking orders, say you? But those that were giving him orders were acting on their own? no Shackley, no Operation 40, no Angleton, no Dulles, no Helms, no Phillips. Just Morales acting on his own. Oswald was just stupid enough to take orders. The others? Smart enough to keep secrets.

I haven't read all of Simpich, but I did read the first two chapters. Is he likewise drawing the line at Morales? The whole point of deep politics is plausible deniability. Morales was no loose cannon. He was part of a much larger operation, always, through his entire career. He was part of a team. Sheehan called it the Secret Team. Others would say that team was taking orders from on high, and should not properly be called Secret, since they were governmental, not rogue.

Can you find it within yourself to look at the footprints of the CIA all over Oswald and consider that maybe, perhaps, the bleeping CIA was giving the orders?

[Paul Trejo]

You are simply put, incorrigible. You are unable to imagine perfidy at the top of the national security food chain. Every time a CIA official, such as Morales, is obviously implicated in the conspiracy, you assert that the rogue operation goes no higher. Why? Morales is in the middle of this, but the files, and the pictures, prove he was no rogue. Oswald was taking orders, say you? But those that were giving him orders were acting on their own? no Shackley, no Operation 40, no Angleton, no Dulles, no Helms, no Phillips. Just Morales acting on his own. Oswald was just stupid enough to take orders. The others? Smart enough to keep secrets.

I haven't read all of Simpich, but I did read the first two chapters. Is he likewise drawing the line at Morales? The whole point of deep politics is plausible deniability. Morales was no loose cannon. He was part of a much larger operation, always, through his entire career. He was part of a team. Sheehan called it the Secret Team. Others would say that team was taking orders from on high, and should not properly be called Secret, since they were governmental, not rogue.

Can you find it within yourself to look at the footprints of the CIA all over Oswald and consider that maybe, perhaps, the bleeping CIA was giving the orders?

Please, Paul B., no need to become upset about it. If you want me to consider the possibility that David Morales was acting on orders higher than himself within the CIA "to blackmail the CIA," then just show me some evidence. Otherwise, it's a self-contradiction.

If Bill Simpich is correct, and David Morales wanted to "blackmail the CIA," then of course his bosses weren't the high-command of the CIA. Why would they want to blackmail themselves? So, as far as the CIA goes, it HAD to be a ROGUE operation inside the CIA, and to this degree I can agree with Bill Simpich.

However, Bill Simpich doesn't go far enough, IMHO, in explaining WHY David Morales instigated this "Oswald and Duran" impersonation on secure, wiretapped telephones between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate in Mexico City.

Now -- if somebody wants to try to link David Morales with higher-ups outside of the CIA, then I will happily follow that trail as far as it leads.

I have no problem in linking CIA Agent David Morales with LOW-LEVEL assets like Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and Ex-General Edwin Walker -- all through Cuba Raid camps like JMWAVE and Lake Pontchartrain and Cuba Raid groups like La Sambra, Interpen, Alpha 66 and Operation 40.

Inside the CIA, the only other confessed ROGUE was E. Howard Hunt. But he admitted he was a 'bench-warmer.'

So, in that line-up, the two highest ranked people would be Walker and Banister. So, I would consider a case that David Morales reported to one of these guys.

IMHO, this is the ROGUE'S GALLERY that murdered JFK. (The cover-up people were completely separate, and NOT on their side.)

However, Paul B., if you can explain why the CIA leadership would want to blackmail themselves, I'm all ears.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I don't buy the blackmail angle. Morales was no rogue.