Oswald Obsession; a Study of the Murder, or the Cover-Up?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

You may be right. A lot of dope was shipped from the Golden Triangle into South Viet Nam. I had, from a language school buddy working under deep cover, second-hand knowledge of this trafficking. From what my buddy told me, the main perps were high-ranking South Vietnamese officials. He had a bird's eye view of the situation.

Was the CIA taking a cut? I have no idea. Today, I wouldn't be surprised.

Jon,

I think the "neutralization" of Laos in '62 was a key event.

Harriman negotiated a deal over the protests of the entire US foreign policy/military establishment -- Laos was partitioned without any verification mechanism to ensure "neutralization."

The Reds got the Ho Chi Minh Trai in the east/south-east, leaving the opium fields in the north-west in "friendly" hands.

Who dictated the Rules of Engagement for the CIA's Hmong allies in Laos?

http://uniyatra.com/hmongnet/hmong-au/hmongcia.htm

According to William Colby it was Averell Harriman.

<quote>

American desire to adhere to the spirit of the Geneva Accords deemed it necessary that the Hmong serve as a clandestine force which could harass the North Vietnamese without being directly linked to the United States. The Hmong were prohibited from taking any offensive actions as that could lead to an escalation in the war on the part of the North Vietnamese. Increased fighting also had the potential to expose the American support of the Hmong and could possibly lead to a complete annulment of the Geneva Accords. Colby - then CIA Deputy Director - was instructed by Assistant Secretary W. Averell Harriman of the State Department to keep the effort in Laos purely defensive in nature.

"'Okay, one hundred guns but no attacks, only for defense,' " Colby said of Harriman's orders.

<quote off>

The US foreign policy/military establishment wanted a militarized Laos and a militarized So Vietnam.

Kennedy wanted a de-militarized Laos and a de-militarized So. Vietnam.

Harriman wanted a de-militarized Laos and a militarized So. Vietnam.

Harriman's policies prevailed.

After all, he was the key player in the overthrow of Diem...

Edited March 27, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[John Dolva]

There may a number of reasons why JFK was assassinated, none of which negate others.

There may have been a hierarchy of plotters from a top tier management to a ground level with a middle management.

eg.: At the top there are persons, groups who saw JFK as a force that threatened to derail a previously laid down course of history and that were primarily concerned with the accumulation of wealth, such as bankers and owners of industry eg oil, steel, weapons, ...

At ground level there may have been persons such as sharecroppers, entire segments of society, ... who faced ruin should blacks gain freedom of movement, wage parity and voting rights as well as the feelings of drastic change forced on them and having to reevaluate set ways of thinking and behaviour for theirselves, family and society.

The top echelon had the power to control events using existing societal structures.

The lower level need have no idea of the intent of the controllers, merely a real, manufactured, influenced drive to act.

In between there may be a middle management who liased with both but was only partly in the loop in a severely compromiseable position, beholden and dedicated.

For Example :

Top : Bankers, Oil Barons,

Middle : People such as Walker,

Bottom : Racists.

Within these groups move law enforcement groupings and other organs of state control.
....

This structure makes everything seem complex. I don't think it needs to be though. It's really a matter of changing the way one looks at the whole thing and recognising a particular internal logic and as such otherwise contradictory events make sense.

IOW 'everyone' may be right but only in a compartmentalised way and there fore no-one [particular theory, person] can ever be completely right.

edit add : ps : I should add that along with the seeming fragmentation of motives there would within each segment particular needs for coverup, thus producing the seemingly complex tapestry available today. Also, there would be persons, groupings that would be involved in the coverups not because they were directly involved but because revealing the 'plot' would compromise unrelated activities. Hence a plethora of rabbit holes. All of which in itself is advantageous to the direct plotters but all can reveal that indeed there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and there were conspiracies to cover that up. Again, all revealing that there was/is a conspiracy. Room after Room of Smoke, Mirrors, and Orchids.

Edited March 28, 2015 by John Dolva

[Larry Hancock]

Helliwell certainly comes into the picture in what I would call phase I of the Golden Triangle story. He and Willis Bird played a key role into getting the

CIA linked into Thailand back in 1950, Helliwell's story then evolved though the Sea Supply logistics cover but that later fell apart in Thailand as Sea Supply got kicked out due to its drug dealings. The second phase,

of the Golden Triangle story moves on up the trial into Laos, as the Nationalist Chinese forces were pushed that direction. Then it began to involve the CIA personnel in Laos and that's where Hecksher comes into the story.

One of the reasons why we know so much more about the details of all this is some brilliant historical research done on the ROC forces in the region, published in The Secret Army, by Richard Gibson.

Also, in regard to rules of engagement in Laos, while its true that the US Ambassador officially bore the final say, we now know that when Shackley moved in as COS in Laos, he began to have a major

impact and actually changed the rules of engagement all up and down the trail, dramatically changing tactics and essentially initiating some of the worst tactical decisions anybody could imagine. Before that

the American military advisers had been recommending the tactics and they had been far more effective; however the officer in charge of that got moved over to Vietnam during the transition to CIA control of

the surrogate Laotian forces.

[Cliff Varnell]

Helliwell certainly comes into the picture in what I would call phase I of the Golden Triangle story. He and Willis Bird played a key role into getting the

CIA linked into Thailand back in 1950, Helliwell's story then evolved though the Sea Supply logistics cover but that later fell apart in Thailand as Sea Supply got kicked out due to its drug dealings. The second phase,

of the Golden Triangle story moves on up the trial into Laos, as the Nationalist Chinese forces were pushed that direction. Then it began to involve the CIA personnel in Laos and that's where Hecksher comes into the story.

One of the reasons why we know so much more about the details of all this is some brilliant historical research done on the ROC forces in the region, published in The Secret Army, by Richard Gibson.

Also, in regard to rules of engagement in Laos, while its true that the US Ambassador officially bore the final say, we now know that when Shackley moved in as COS in Laos, he began to have a major

impact and actually changed the rules of engagement all up and down the trail, dramatically changing tactics and essentially initiating some of the worst tactical decisions anybody could imagine. Before that

the American military advisers had been recommending the tactics and they had been far more effective; however the officer in charge of that got moved over to Vietnam during the transition to CIA control of

the surrogate Laotian forces.

Terrific material, Larry!

Harriman's overt influence ended with the murder of Diem.

Kennedy put Harriman out of the "Vietnam business" (Spanning the Century, Abramson, pg 625) in the weeks preceding his death.

"Harriman knew Kennedy's confidence in him was shaken." -- ibid, pg 624.

In terms of "motive, means and opportunity" I think Averell Harriman stands out.

[Cliff Varnell]

Larry,

What did Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with any of this?

Just curious...

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Cliff, I think its safe to say we truly do know a great deal more about the details of events in SE Asia now, much of it based on material only available since 2000. As with most other history we can now flesh out things we thought we knew, diminish or toss other ideas that were based on less information and it all once again proves it just takes considerable time for real history to emerge from the chaos of events - and of course all the contemporary efforts to obfuscate and perform CYA.

In that respect I just finished reading a great article on Rolling Thunder and how it began and was micromanaged. In particular how Johnson and his incompetent SecDefense marginalized it and the total disconnect between war fighting and what covert negotiation attempts that Johnson was trying to pull off. Its a terrible indictment of Johnson's micromanagement of the air campaign - if the families of the airman involved had known what he was really doing they should have gone after him with pitchforks. We now have actual details of the mission planning that are so appalling that it would make any Vietnam era vet want to start beating their head against the wall.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Larry Hancock

[Mark Knight]

GREAT stuff, Larry!

And Cliff...I think this ties to an earlier thread in which you were involved:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18120

[Larry Hancock]

Cliff, I don't think Oswald had anything to do with these international events per se other than ultimately beginning a target of opportunity - first for various intelligence groups and ultimately, in October 63, for the folks organizing the attack in Dallas. At this point in time I have seen files on so many individuals who were observed, monitored and reported on for real or potential contacts with foreign operatives that I don't see that much totally unique about Oswald up to fall, 1963. Then, because it was clear he would end up in Dallas during the Texas Trip he became a viable patsy for Dallas. I will also be perfectly up front and say that Oswald himself understood the general context of the situation when he said he was being arrested simply because he worked in the TSBD and had been to Russia and was an obvious suspect (yeah, I know he didn't say all that actually but he did say part of it and I have to tell you that anybody with the slightest "commie" leanings would have been target number one in Dallas after the attack - which explains the focus on Molina as well). What he didn't know is the elements of the frame (some of which did make it into play and some of which did not) which was more specifically set up to tie him to the shooting.....which may explain why he was more "casual" about things at the beginning than seems reasonable. He very possibly had no idea there was physical evidence in place to link him to the shooting, real or not.

Now having said that, I better be a bit more clear. I think Oswald was related specifically to the Dallas plot because he was known to the exile network which operated from Miami through New Orleans to Dallas and that network was very sensitive to anybody who was a Castro supporter - which Oswald appeared to be in NO. I have also seen numerous internal CI reports where individuals - usually exiles - were reported inside the CIA and to the FBI as being Castro agents or being used by Castro agents. In the fall of 63 agent Heitman in Dallas was conducting an intensive investigation of an exile who had been fingered in Miami as a possible double agent. What I'm trying to say is that people like Oswald were identified and targeted by exile counter intelligence, both the official group at JM/WAVE and by various exile groups themselves. It is literally insane to think that the DRE folks in NO did not generate info on Oswald - which is why we are never going to see those Joinedes (sp) documents. So, Oswald became "known" and visible, ultimately to people who needed to lay some groundwork to point to Castro in Dallas. And given how the exiles in particular gossiped, you can darn well bet that people they trusted and who had trained them, ultimately heard at least the general details of the conspiracy and probably a few names as well....all of which leads you back to Quintero and Jenkins that I mentioned in a post an earlier post. And of course when Underhill heard about the assassination, he immediately thought of the clique down in Miami that had earlier ties to SE Asia, to contemporary covert arms dealings and to covert Cuban operations - he was bright enough to know that JFK and RFK were very unsatisfied as to how those things were going, he may well have heard that RFK had his own people snooping around Miami trying to find out if the CIA was really doing what they were supposed to or if there were things going on which did not support administration plans and directions (which was certainly true). Put two and two together and you have Underhill feeling that some of the folks he had come across might well have been involved in the Kennedy assassiantion and that they knew he had been nosing around and that he was at risk. Whether or not he really was is questionable but its perfectly clear why he had legitimate reasons to be afraid.

-- OK, next time please ask me a closed end rather than open end question so I don't go off like this again... Larry

Sorry, that was all over the place but

[Cliff Varnell]

Great great stuff, Larry.

It seems to me that the people directly monitoring/manipulating Oswald wouldn't have been the same folks who directly shot JFK -- two separate operations conducted from on high with a very small universe of people who "needed to know" about both.

I challenge the notion that Oswald connects in any way with the shooters or those who pushed the button

Edited March 28, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

GREAT stuff, Larry!

And Cliff...I think this ties to an earlier thread in which you were involved:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18120

Come back to the Ed Forum Michael Hogan Michael Hogan...

[Larry Hancock]

Cliff, I too doubt that Oswald had any direct contact with what I call the tactical or shooter team or for that matter with those who incited/organized actual conspiracy which ended up in Dallas.

And a good patsy is isolated from the conspiracy per se, the last thing those with good trade-craft would want is a linkage....think of all those white boards on the mystery shows, the bad guys

get caught when a detective team connects the dots. Of course in this case there as no true detective team in hot pursuit but nobody with experience would count on that.

[Mark Knight]

Great great stuff, Larry.

It seems to me that the people directly monitoring/manipulating Oswald wouldn't have been the same folks who directly shot JFK -- two separate operations conducted from on high with a very small universe of people who "needed to know" about both.

I challenge the notion that Oswald connects in any way with the shooters or those who pushed the button

The more details I read, the more I'm inclined to agree with you.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, I too doubt that Oswald had any direct contact with what I call the tactical or shooter team or for that matter with those who incited/organized actual conspiracy which ended up in Dallas.

And a good patsy is isolated from the conspiracy per se, the last thing those with good trade-craft would want is a linkage....think of all those white boards on the mystery shows, the bad guys

get caught when a detective team connects the dots. Of course in this case there as no true detective team in hot pursuit but nobody with experience would count on that.

Exactly!

Which is why I contend that the study of Oswald is the study of the cover-up, not the murder.

I note that people get very upset if you point out that they're not JFK assassination researchers but JFK assassination cover-up researchers.

[Mark Knight]

Cliff, I'm becoming convinced that Bundy and Harriman were near the top of the pyramid. Not sure I'd say they were AT the top, but they were very, very close...in my opinion.

And the study of Oswald is, as you say, the study of the cover-up. I think Jon Tidd has given us plenty of food for thought in that area, and yet managed to tie it [loosely] to Bundy et al. And I think the Walker-led conspiracy idea is yet another "rabbit hole" which leaves us seeing things "through the looking glass."

[Don Jeffries]

I think that Garrison got it essentially right; Oswald was a low-level intelligence agent of some sort, who was assigned to infiltrate what he was told was a potential plot to kill the president. The group he infiltrated- which I believe included Shaw, Ferrie and Ruby- were quite probably "patsies" of a sort themselves. It's even possible that they were each told the same thing; that they were spying on a group of potential assassins for the agency that employed them.

I have always thought, and continue to think, that those who planned the assassination included some of the most powerful people in our society at the time. I also believe, like Vincent Salandria, that the cover up was, from the beginning, meant to be transparently obvious. Why else plant a nearly pristine bullet, to cite just one example, instead of one that actually looked the part? They wanted the controversy.