Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was it Lansdale?


Guest Mark Valenti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul and Ron...

I can understand if you'd prefer to just jockey back and forth without the evidence in front of you... yet if you want to know WHY the FBI created the entire bus trip, and how it was accomplished you might want to read the work which has taken me the last 8 months.... Mexico City Trip: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Do you know who the Lawyer Ochoa was and how he helped the FBI with the Mexican Evidence?

Are you aware of what Arturo Bosch did to the Frontera bus passenger mainfest? (when it was found that a 2pm departure could not get him to connecting buses in time to get back to the TEC for his Oct 3rd appointment... it was dropped and no longer considered evidence of the trip... as it had been for quite some time) They knew who did it and when yet there was no followup to the Mexican President, his staff or Bosch for falsifying evidence... they just found another bus which leaves at 8:30am - Del Norte - while other FBI reports put him on the Anahuac bus line...

Did you know that the Aussie girls and McFarland were not on the bus the FBI claims Oswald was on?

At some point don't you need to actually go to the work and evidence and stop spreading incorrect information about this trip? The documents are part of the paper...

The "Oswald" character is a composite of a number of different passengers a number of different witnesses claimed to have seen...

Yet when you get to the evidence, none of it is true.

There was no "Oswald" on any of these buses... the evidence shows that "LEE, Harvey Oswald" or H.O. LEE is the name on the travel documents. That all the after the fact info created alphabetizes Mr. LEE between N and P, never as Mr. Lee as all the evidence shows.

Reports talk of Lee HENRY Oswald traveling as shown by the Mexican records yet there is not one piece of evidence that uses HENRY...

State Consul Harvey CASH lies to the I&NS about what the evidence handed to him actually says by removing reference to "Vieja en Auto" and letting the FBI and I&NS create a badly pieced together bus trip.

If you can actually read thru the work and still believe that Oswald was on a bus or even in Mexico, that the FBI bus Oswald is the CIA's embassy Oswald, or that any of the evidence supporting the FBI's story is authentic, please post it... Nothing I have found to date supports the FBI's version of the story.

No one to date has taken a look at this evidence as I have... it started as a request from Jim D to do a write up when the signature on the Hotel registry and the name on the fake Visa - LEE, HARVEY OSWALD - are written exactly the same way while the signature on the visa itself is "Lee Oswald" (btw - the visa application with Oswald's name, as I posted before, was not a 15 day FM-8 but for a 180 day FM-5) What we learn is that OCHOA has the hotel registry, had already added notes to aid the investigation on the FM-11 and provides copies - NEVER originals - of these pages along with virtually every other piece of Mexican evidence for this falsified bus ride.

Say or feel whatever you want towards me... the evidence is all there and presented for you to decide. So are most of the links to the sources.

Paul - you specifically have a very narrow view of what the evidence shows. More than just Osborne talks about there not being other english speaking people on the bus...

Yes, David, many of us actually have read "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong (2003). This is not really news.

What I think you're missing (as Armstrong also missed) David, is that we are already ahead of Armstrong.

IMHO -- the FBI got orders -- actual orders -- from J. Edgar Hoover on 11/22/1963 at 3pm CST, that there must be only Oswald -- and no matter what other evidence they found, they had to make that secret, and put up a FACADE that Oswald acted ALONE.

The main problem with the Mexico City episode (of the many problems there) is that Mexican Immigration only had records showing that OSWALD came to Mexico and left Mexico as a passenger in an automobile.

John Armstrong got that part right.

However, the FBI could not accept that Truth. Also, they knew that the Mexican Police (DFS) would do ANYTHING that the CIA asked them to do -- so the FBI asked the CIA to ask the DFS to create false records about Oswald.

As John Armstrong nicely showed, the DFS tried to do this, and botched the entire job -- so that the FBI had to reject the False Records, and ask for even MORE False Records. This took many weeks and weeks -- and the FBI was feeling embarrassed about the Mexico City episode.

So -- none of this is new, and John Armstrong tries to show that this Cover-up of a Conspiracy somehow implicates the CIA high-command in the JFK murder -- which is total nonsense.

What John Armstrong failed to grasp is the discovery that Bill Simpich made in his free eBook, "State Secret" (2014). I refer to the discovery that the CIA scrapped all records of OSWALD in Mexico City because of the Impersonation that occurred starting on Tuesday 01 October 1963. The CIA High Command started a MOLE HUNT....this centered on DAP and Goodpasture first and foremost.

John Armstrong mistakenly thought that DAP and Goodpasture were trying to cover their own plot to kill JFK. That's his fault.

Have you read Simpich's book, David?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul - you overstate your case. What else is new?

Dismissing Newman, as if Simpich made him obsolete. Got news for you. Newman is still working on it. When he says CIA files and operations are multileveled he knows what he is talking about. Simpich would not dismiss Newman, or PD Scott, another one of your favorite whipping boys, the way you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul - you overstate your case. What else is new?

Dismissing Newman, as if Simpich made him obsolete. Got news for you. Newman is still working on it. When he says CIA files and operations are multileveled he knows what he is talking about. Simpich would not dismiss Newman, or PD Scott, another one of your favorite whipping boys, the way you do.

If you don't mind, Paul B., I'd rather hear that from Bill Simpich himself.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

"The Unquiet American," gets interesting on page 119 " My Guy Magsasay" during the 1951 election for Quirino.

Supposedly, Allen Dulles ratted Landsdale out as a CIA/OPC operative.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles then asked Landsdale to return immediately to the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was curious to see if the ears lined up -- it's approximate but they seem to.

Although I already believe it's Lansdale, the amateurish "photographic study" you posted does not persuade.

damn, Greg - "amateurish"? what an amateurish comment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's funny (ironic) that this topic has come back up today (for me, anyway) - i was JUST reading the part about Landsdale in Bartholomew's article last night, wondering... Lansdale's Viet Nam comm. with LBJ, the whole USAF Intel circle... hhmmm...

on another topic:

reading through these threads must be what listening in on Senate debates sounds like. Isn't the endgame supposed to be the same, here? what's with all the animosity?

Does the guy with the closest theory win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn - there are some, not many, members, who view this forum as a place to argue that they have figured things out, and those, like me I will admit, who take umbrage at those who push their theory. Then there are others who engage endlessly with some particular person insisting that they are mistaken. I've been here for about 3 years, and though it's always been like it is now, I think there was more info posted in earlier years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Paul - i take umbrage too, believe me - my political leanings even have their say within my head - I just feel that there are civil and uncivil means being used in here, and the uncivil is neither necessary nor effective.

It seems to me that "the cause" is forgotten, even weakened, in these efforts to insult. If I could witness the truth at the cost of being totally wrong in my hypothesis, then let it be - thems MY thoughts.

/***************/

I began reading UT Rambler in looking up some stuff on DH Byrd and his connections with Cabell Bros. (i'm doing a thing on my website strictly on connections between people - Byrd > Mac Wallace > LBJ, etc, which is pretty unavoidable circumstance, I like to think) and I'm finding all this great stuff on U.T., Rostow, de Mohrenschildt, Lansdale - Lansdale's "mistreatment" by K. re Viet Nam... that whole circle of dastardly persons is hard to ignore.

This guy Newman seems to do good homework. I'm coming to learn the upper level researchers, Newman, Oglesby - Posner (just kidding)...

I'm just on the first of the 3 LONG pages of Rambler - wow. It's one thing to consider (i said "Consider", you convinced ones, not "believe") rogue CIA did it - quite another to think of the possibility that a serving AF Colonel might have been involved.

one thing i've learned in 30+ years: Kennedy sure knew how to piss people off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was curious to see if the ears lined up -- it's approximate but they seem to.

Although I already believe it's Lansdale, the amateurish "photographic study" you posted does not persuade.

damn, Greg - "amateurish"? what an amateurish comment...

I'm not sure I'm following you, Glenn.

By way of explanation, in my opinion, not all evidence carries the same weight. As an example: A photographic study that is often used by professional photographic analysts employing methods generally accepted as producing accurate results would carry more weight than one conducted by someone who is simply "eyeballing" it. The former's expectancy for yielding reliable results exceeds the latter's by a long shot and is therefore more persuasive.

In this thread I did not direct my comment at the "person" who conducted the "study," but rather at the imprecision of the methodology he chose to employ. However, to be fair, it might be the only methodology available to him. But even so, IMO, it does not persuade.

While I personally find the identification offered by both Colonel Fletcher Prouty and General Victor Krulak to be persuasive, others who knew neither of these close associates of Lansdale, may not. But, in my opinion, their positive identification of the man in the photo as being one and the same as Landsdale--a man with whom both were very familiar and with whom both had worked closely for more than a decade--is more persuasive than is the "facial feature" alignment study.

But, that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Unquiet American," gets interesting on page 119 " My Guy Magsasay" during the 1951 election for Quirino.

Supposedly, Allen Dulles ratted Landsdale out as a CIA/OPC operative.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles then asked Landsdale to return immediately to the United States.

Well, Peter, the 1998 book by biographer Cecil B. Currey, Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American, is an exciting read, IMHO.

Air Force and CIA in the Philippines, Lansdale brilliantly set up free elections in the Philippines in the early 1950's. In Vietnam Lansdale helped Diem set up a government. Yet Lansdale, despite his brilliance, failed to prevent Vietnam from falling apart.

Evidently Lansdale was sociologically challenged, and failed to see the main split between South and North Vietnam was the split between Buddhism and Catholicism -- and his counterinsurgency program just ran over this problem slipshod. Like everybody in the USA, Lansdale was taken by surprise by Buddhist monks making torches of themselves. His recommended response was B-52 raids.

I think JFK was the only President who could have guided Lansdale to success in Vietnam, being Catholic and all.

The real problem of Lansdale, in this thread, however, is whether Lansdale was part of the JFK Kill-Team at Dealey Plaza. The photographs of Lansdale with the three Dealey Plaza Tramps, as alleged by his Lieutenant Fletcher Prouty, are part of the enduring puzzle of the JFK murder.

What do you think, Peter? Did Lansdale turn his back on JFK and join the extreme right-wing in claiming that JFK was really a Communist? I don't go there. I tend to agree with Larry Hancock who is willing to give Lansdale the benefit of the doubt; e.g. if Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963, there was probably a benign reason for it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Brian, could you give some more detail on when and where they worked together - not suggesting they didn't but just interested in the details I understand the references to the book work but I'd like to know more about

what Hunt was doing as of the end of 1961 and where it brought him into conduct with Lansdale during 1962....just curiosity.

I was doing some reading last night and came across a Lansdale/Hunt gem I had forgotten:

When Hunt was stationed in Mexico in 1953, part of his work was to cultivate labor leaders who were less-than-leftist and thus could be popular alternatives to communist labor leadership. During this time, Magsaysay, closing in on his victory at home, was doing a tour of Mexico with Lansdale. Hunt convinced Lansdale and local CIA leadership to arrange a meeting between Magsaysay and the labor leader he was courting, ostensibly to install or reinforce anti-Communist sentiments in Magsaysay. The meeting was to be at a CIA safe house, but Lansdale, being the careful and skeptical person he was, arrived early to check out the premises and meet the labor leader ahead of time. A few minutes after Lansdale arrived (before Magsaysay was to be there), secret Mexican police raided the safe house and arrested Hunt's guy on PRO-Communist conspiracy charges. Obviously furious, Lansdale phoned Hunt and reamed him out for the potentially embarrassing situation for Magsaysay. So suffice to say, they were definitely familiar with each other and Lansdale definitely would have recognized Hunt in '63.

Also, Larry, it appears my statements about the authorship of The Craft of Intelligence may not be completely correct. There is some legitimate dispute over Hunt's role in it. He was undoubtedly involved with the book to some degree, but after Watergate the CIA understandably denied Hunt authored the book and instead said that it was almost exclusively Howard Roman. Some senior CIA officials have said off the record that Hunt really did write the bulk of it and Roman was merely the liaison with the publishing firm. If you look at Dulles' personal calendar/appointment book, though, he meets with Roman on a daily basis during the first half of 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You almost have to have some sympathy for Howard; that was only one of a number of things that went wrong during his relatively brief Mexico City assignment. In Miami there is the motel incident, the safe house lock down of the exile leadership and when Artime got into the AMWROLD project Hunt tried to insert himself and Hecksher was less than gentle in telling him to stay away from his project and Artime, then you have Watergate.....I'd think authoring action novels was probably a welcome change of pace. Apparently the royalty stream on that didn't hold up too well though.

I could well believe he didn't totally write the Dulles book himself, not sure he would be the right choice for non-fiction; he probably took over some edit and review chores for Dulles on the project as well as being the project liason. I would certainly like to know what else Barnes might have had him doing during 1963 though, what it is has never been clear to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, when it comes to Lansdale he did write his own book, I've always wanted to get it, but not at some outrageous price.

It's called....

In the Midst of Wars: An American's Mission to Southeast Asia By Edward Geary Lansdale

As much as I wish, I doubt he really goes out on a limb and gets into topics like Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 or much else. But I don't know.

Although he's not one of my fav researchers Bruce C. Adamson has a couple of mimeographed copies of photos of Fletcher Prouty in the same photo

with Howard Burris, who also [besides Lansdale] figures into de-classified JFK Documents. Burris and his son had some strange back and forth

with the HSCA, one allegation was that Burris was the bagman for the JFK hit. In 1968 Burris created a museum of sorts in Washington D. C. I

want to say it was called Horizon Gardens or something like that; on their website there is no reference to Burris, but there is to the Wing family.

I wondered if that family was related to the Wing who was at UT with Harry Ransom, not that it would necessarily mean anything. The research community

has suffered from Prouty's lack of precision in the whole saga of the JFK assassination, at least I feel that way. I do believe Prouty believed

Lansdale was the man in the photo next to the tramps, whether it was or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, when it comes to Lansdale he did write his own book, I've always wanted to get it, but not at some outrageous price.

It's called....

In the Midst of Wars: An American's Mission to Southeast Asia By Edward Geary Lansdale

As much as I wish, I doubt he really goes out on a limb and gets into topics like Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 or much else. But I don't know.

I have the book and there is nothing at all in it about the assassination. John F. Kennedy is not even in the index.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Ecker

I have the book and there is nothing at all in it about the assassination. John F. Kennedy is not even in the index.

Is there a loose timeline of his career; I take it there is no account of his stay at the Fort Worth Hotel?.....lol

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...