Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mr. Caddy - was E.Howard Hunt one of the 'tramps'?


Recommended Posts

Paul Brancato raised an excellent point: the infamous 11:00 am June 23, 1972 conversation between Richard Nixon and Bob Haldeman was the one in which Nixon invoked the "Bay of Pigs" code to coerce the CIA into telling the FBI to back off the Watergate break-in investigation. (When the tape of this conversation was finally released after the Supreme Court denied President Nixon's claim of executive privilege to keep it secret, Nixon resigned two weeks later.) 

Brancato is also correct that (for many years) Haldeman later claimed in writing that the "Bay of Pigs" reference was a code for the JFK assassination. It is also true that the CIA director, Richard Helms, vehemently and angrily denied to Haldeman during their meeting later that same day that "the Bay of Pigs had anything to do with this" (the Watergate break-in.)

What especially troubled Richard Nixon about the Watergate break-in was the involvement of E. Howard Hunt. Nixon knew that Hunt had done some very secret (illegal) work for the CIA and that a full-blown FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in would "uncover a lot of things . . .  a lot of hanky-panky . . ."

What I don't see in this thread is the critical point of the "Smoking Gun" tape - Nixon's threat worked! Despite Helms's dislike and disdain for Richard Nixon, the involvement of E. Howard Hunt in Watergate FORCED Helms to lie to the FBI that Watergate was a CIA operation (which, while unbeknownst to Nixon, it almost certainly was!) 

Haldeman's guess that Nixon's code phrase the "Bay of Pigs thing" was a reference to the JFK assassination was undoubtedly correct (which is precisely why he was pressured to retract it years later!) 

Refardless of whether or not Hunt was either a tramp or in the hat and raincoat, E. Howard Hunt was involved in the JFK assassination and both Richard Nixon and Richard Helms knew it. Helms had no choice but to lie to the FBI.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Paul Brancato raised an excellent point: the infamous 11:00 am June 23, 1972 conversation between Richard Nixon and Bob Haldeman was the one in which Nixon invoked the "Bay of Pigs" code to coerce the CIA into telling the FBI to back off the Watergate break-in investigation. (When the tape of this conversation was finally released after the Supreme Court denied President Nixon's claim of executive privilege to keep it secret, Nixon resigned two weeks later.) 

Brancato is also correct that (for many years) Haldeman later claimed in writing that the "Bay of Pigs" reference was a code for the JFK assassination. It is also true that the CIA director, Richard Helms, vehemently and angrily denied to Haldeman during their meeting later that same day that "the Bay of Pigs had anything to do with this" (the Watergate break-in.)

What especially troubled Richard Nixon about the Watergate break-in was the involvement of E. Howard Hunt. Nixon knew that Hunt had done some very secret (illegal) work for the CIA and that a full-blown FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in would "uncover a lot of things . . .  a lot of hanky-panky . . ."

What I don't see in this thread is the critical point of the "Smoking Gun" tape - Nixon's threat worked! Despite Helms's dislike and disdain for Richard Nixon, the involvement of E. Howard Hunt in Watergate FORCED Helms to lie to the FBI that Watergate was a CIA operation (which, while unbeknownst to Nixon, it almost certainly was!) 

Haldeman's guess that Nixon's code phrase the "Bay of Pigs thing" was a reference to the JFK assassination was undoubtedly correct (which is precisely why he was pressured to retract it years later!) 

Refardless of whether or not Hunt was either a tramp or in the hat and raincoat, E. Howard Hunt was involved in the JFK assassination and both Richard Nixon and Richard Helms knew it. Helms had no choice but to lie to the FBI.

 

 

Nice to see you post Paul as I don't remember any lately.  In relation to it I thought Angleton's cryptic note to Helms about Hunt in Dallas 11/22/63 should be, noted, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Nice to see you post Paul as I don't remember any lately.  In relation to it I thought Angleton's cryptic note to Helms about Hunt in Dallas 11/22/63 should be, noted, as well.

One further point: the super - sophisticated, smooth - talking, polished, urbane DCI, Richard Helms himself was asked under oath why he’d gone along with Nixon’s demand to use the CIA to (Falsely? Certainly not!) claim to the FBI that the Watergate break-in was an agency operation, and therefore, the FBI should back off.

After all, if there was nothing to Nixon’s threat that an unfettered look at Howard Hunt would track back to the “Bay of Pigs thing”, then the CIA had nothing to fear from the FBI.

But Helms (despite his real anger) did cave in, and the CIA really did tell the FBI to back off!

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/06/archives/nixon-ordered-that-the-fbi-be-told-dont-go-any-further-into-this.html
 

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/nixons-bay-pigs-secrets/

When asked on August 2, 1973, why he’d gone along with the Nixon threat, if there was nothing to it, Helms stammered that maybe somehow that Nixon knew something he didn’t about Hunt and the “Bay of Pigs thing.”

Bull.

Richard Helms was (literally) known as “The Man Who Kept The Secrets”. He was the CIA Director because he knew everything about the CIA.

Helms complied with Nixon because Nixon’s threat was real.

https://www.amazon.com/man-who-kept-secrets-Richard/dp/0394507770

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

One further point: the super - sophisticated, smooth - talking, polished, urbane DCI, Richard Helms himself was asked under oath why he’d gone along with Nixon’s demand to use the CIA to (Falsely? Certainly not!) claim to the FBI that the Watergate break-in was an agency operation, and therefore, the FBI should back off.

After all, if there was nothing to Nixon’s threat that an unfettered look at Howard Hunt would track back to the “Bay of Pigs thing”, then the CIA had nothing to fear from the FBI.

But Helms (despite his real anger) did cave in, and the CIA really did tell the FBI to back off!

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/06/archives/nixon-ordered-that-the-fbi-be-told-dont-go-any-further-into-this.html
 

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/nixons-bay-pigs-secrets/

When asked on August 2, 1973, why he’d gone along with the Nixon threat, if there was nothing to it, Helms stammered that maybe somehow that Nixon knew something he didn’t about Hunt and the “Bay of Pigs thing.”

Bull.

Richard Helms was (literally) known as “The Man Who Kept The Secrets”. He was the CIA Director because he knew everything about the CIA.

Helms complied with Nixon because Nixon’s threat was real.

https://www.amazon.com/man-who-kept-secrets-Richard/dp/0394507770

 

Ron,

The definitive account of that infamous memo (Angleton to Helms: Someday we’ll have to explain Hunt’s presence in Dallas on 11/22/63) was written by Mark Lane in his fascinating book about the 1985 libel trial, “Plausible Denial.”

Exactly who saw that memo, whether it was authentic, or disinformation is still a matter of some dispute.

In the book’s stunning summation of Hunt’s testimony, Lane was able to get Hunt to admit he had no good alibi for his whereabouts on 11/21 or 11/22/63 - Hunt’s long stated claim to have witnesses to his presence in Washington D.C. at that time was false. 

Incredibly, Hunt admitted that his own children did not believe he was in Washington that weekend!

They still don’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your E.H.Hunt and you have had any role in the financing or planning of JFK's assassination and you had to be in Dallas to make it all come together...where is the last place on earth you would let yourself be filmed or photographed between 11/21/63 and 11/23/63. There is no way its Hunt as a tramp or strolling around elm st. Minutes after the shooting. Use some logic people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

If your E.H.Hunt and you have had any role in the financing or planning of JFK's assassination and you had to be in Dallas to make it all come together...where is the last place on earth you would let yourself be filmed or photographed between 11/21/63 and 11/23/63. There is no way its Hunt as a tramp or strolling around elm st. Minutes after the shooting. Use some logic people.

Adam, 
I doubt Hunt was a tramp, and I can’t tell if the Hunt-like figure in the hat and raincoat on Elm Street was really Hunt either.

Douglas Caddy, who knew Hunt, wrote that the Cancellare photo looks like Hunt. That’s as far as anyone can say, for now.

What is more interesting is that Hunt’s alibi for 11/21 and 11/22/63 was destroyed, under oath, by his own stupid admission that his children could not place him with them at home in Washington that weekend!

Further, the combination of both Marita Lorenz’s sworn statement and the Angleton/Helms memo would seem to be pretty good evidence that Hunt was indeed in Dallas then. Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not bad.

By his own admission to his own son, E. Howard Hunt was involved (somehow) with the assassination!

The murder of the president was an act of an enormous collective ego - these guys were sure they could get away with it!

It is entirely plausible that various conspirators were cocky enough to watch in person in Dealey Plaza. Whether he was or was not captured in a photo, Hunt may very well have been right there near Elm Street.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2020 at 1:53 AM, Paul Jolliffe said:

Paul Brancato raised an excellent point: the infamous 11:00 am June 23, 1972 conversation between Richard Nixon and Bob Haldeman was the one in which Nixon invoked the "Bay of Pigs" code to coerce the CIA into telling the FBI to back off the Watergate break-in investigation. (When the tape of this conversation was finally released after the Supreme Court denied President Nixon's claim of executive privilege to keep it secret, Nixon resigned two weeks later.) 

Brancato is also correct that (for many years) Haldeman later claimed in writing that the "Bay of Pigs" reference was a code for the JFK assassination. It is also true that the CIA director, Richard Helms, vehemently and angrily denied to Haldeman during their meeting later that same day that "the Bay of Pigs had anything to do with this" (the Watergate break-in.)

What especially troubled Richard Nixon about the Watergate break-in was the involvement of E. Howard Hunt. Nixon knew that Hunt had done some very secret (illegal) work for the CIA and that a full-blown FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in would "uncover a lot of things . . .  a lot of hanky-panky . . ."

What I don't see in this thread is the critical point of the "Smoking Gun" tape - Nixon's threat worked! Despite Helms's dislike and disdain for Richard Nixon, the involvement of E. Howard Hunt in Watergate FORCED Helms to lie to the FBI that Watergate was a CIA operation (which, while unbeknownst to Nixon, it almost certainly was!) 

Haldeman's guess that Nixon's code phrase the "Bay of Pigs thing" was a reference to the JFK assassination was undoubtedly correct (which is precisely why he was pressured to retract it years later!) 

Refardless of whether or not Hunt was either a tramp or in the hat and raincoat, E. Howard Hunt was involved in the JFK assassination and both Richard Nixon and Richard Helms knew it. Helms had no choice but to lie to the FBI.

 

 

.....and is it true that Nixon once told an aide that the coverup of JFK's assassination was the greatest hoax ever.  (quote from George Schwimmer's 'Doppelganger'.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

If your E.H.Hunt and you have had any role in the financing or planning of JFK's assassination and you had to be in Dallas to make it all come together...where is the last place on earth you would let yourself be filmed or photographed between 11/21/63 and 11/23/63. There is no way its Hunt as a tramp or strolling around elm st. Minutes after the shooting. Use some logic people.

But if you’re a back up patsy who the Agency was willing to sacrifice in the contingency of a plot gone awry, you might get photographed when Ed Lansdale is seeing to it you’re brought in from the cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

.....and is it true that Nixon once told an aide that the coverup of JFK's assassination was the greatest hoax ever.  (quote from George Schwimmer's 'Doppelganger'.)

Nixon may have said that, but I don’t know the specifics.

What is intriguing to me is the probability that Nixon’s fabled penchant for secrecy (as noted by every one of his mainstream biographers) may NOT have been due solely to his own personality.

I think it’s very likely that Nixon tried to amass as much power as possible in the NSC in the White House (at the expense of the State Dept., the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, etc.) because he knew and feared what they had done to the two presidents before him.

Nixon was very savvy politically - he loved to talk politics with his aides.

Even as a private citizen in 1963 he was very attuned to the possibility that JFK might dump LBJ from the 1964 ticket - on 11/21/63, in Dallas(!!!), Nixon ruminated in an interview on that very topic. It raised headlines in Dallas, only to be superseded by events within 24 hours.

https://m.imgur.com/mhNdUd3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

But if you’re a back up patsy who the Agency was willing to sacrifice in the contingency of a plot gone awry, you might get photographed when Ed Lansdale is seeing to it you’re brought in from the cold.

Cliff,

I am convinced that the back-up patsy was Buell Wesley Frazier. If the lone shooter scenario fell apart (and on Friday night with a live “Oswald” protesting his innocence before TV cameras, that was a great possibility!) then Frazier was next in line.

On Friday night, at that very moment, Frazier was already in Fritz’s clutches, the finger of suspicion pointing straight at him!

There was even a witness from the infamous Sports Drome Rifle Range who claimed that “Oswald” had practiced there with a man named “Frazier”!

No, Howard Hunt was way too high up the CIA food chain (he knew way too much) to be burned as a patsy.

Frazier is alive and walking around today because the FBI intervened at that very moment late Friday night, took over the case, seized all the “evidence” and flew it to Washington. With the pressure no longer on Fritz to make the case, he released Frazier right then.

The FBI intervened on Friday night not because they wanted to save Frazier, but because by then J. Edgar Hoover knew how crucial it was to manipulate the evidence to pin it all on “Oswald.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Cliff,

I am convinced that the back-up patsy was Buell Wesley Frazier. If the lone shooter scenario fell apart (and on Friday night with a live “Oswald” protesting his innocence before TV cameras, that was a great possibility!) then Frazier was next in line.

Why would you think there’d only be one back-up patsy?

44 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

On Friday night, at that very moment, Frazier was already in Fritz’s clutches, the finger of suspicion pointing straight at him!

There was even a witness from the infamous Sports Drome Rifle Range who claimed that “Oswald” had practiced there with a man named “Frazier”!

No, Howard Hunt was way too high up the CIA food chain (he knew way too much) to be burned as a patsy.

And if the plot went awry and the Agency was deeply implicated — I don’t think they’d hesitate to throw Hunt to the wolves. I’ll go you one better — they wouldn’t have hesitated throwing Allen Dulles on the patsy pile, either, if things went badly enough.

You don’t think they would have game planned it that far?

I do.

 

44 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Frazier is alive and walking around today because the FBI intervened at that very moment late Friday night, took over the case, seized all the “evidence” and flew it to Washington. With the pressure no longer on Fritz to make the case, he released Frazier right then.

The FBI intervened on Friday night not because they wanted to save Frazier, but because by then J. Edgar Hoover knew how crucial it was to manipulate the evidence to pin it all on “Oswald.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

 

What is more interesting is that Hunt’s alibi for 11/21 and 11/22/63 was destroyed, under oath, by his own stupid admission that his children could not place him with them at home in Washington that weekend!

Further, the combination of both Marita Lorenz’s sworn statement and the Angleton/Helms memo would seem to be pretty good evidence that Hunt was indeed in Dallas then. Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not bad.

By his own admission to his own son, E. Howard Hunt was involved (somehow) with the assassination!

The murder of the president was an act of an enormous collective ego - these guys were sure they could get away with it!

 

 

 

Paul, from your post above I take it you feel E. Howard Hunt was in some way involved in the JFK assassination?

At least to some degree?

So many people, even here on this forum, discount Hunt's involvement and especially the account he shared with his son St. John Hunt, even though St. John Hunt has an actual  tape of his father stating this account ( I think no one disputes the tape actually being E. Howard Hunt ) with specific names mentioned by E.Hunt such as Morales, Frank Sturgis, Cord Meyer and LBJ himself.

Personally I have always been fascinated with Hunt's JFK "Big Event" end of life confessional tape.

If his account is true...we have an insider's account as to who planned and coordinated the JFK murder in Dallas, Texas, 11,22,1963!

An absolute "highest level insider"  who was deeply involved with some of the most important covert actions ever taken in the world of political espionage both domestically and foreign during this time period.

Hunt is such a high level "spy" he is involved with the highest levels of our government and secret government agencies and for a long time.

Any volunteered tape confession of something as mind blowing as his "Big Event" story

cannot be so easily dismissed because of this highest level background imo.

Yes, at the time of this taping Hunt did show some signs of dementia...at least regards his slower and more halting speaking. But compared to witnessing dementia in my own experience, his cognitive skills were pretty good over-all. 

And I do believe Hunt could have done this all for his son St. John Hunt thinking that his confessional tape might fetch a six figure sum from some national book publisher due to it's mind blowing content and context.

Still, the story itself is so incredible in who it implicates, if it was perceived to be "too good to be true" then E. Hunt and his son St. John Hunt tried a scheme that backfired.

I still can't fully believe that E.Howard Hunt could throw out something so outrageously government rule and lying shocking that if it was to be believed, could throw our entire nation, our government and our MSM into a state of righteous revolt.

If LBJ and Cord Meyer and Hunt's crew actually made the JFK assassination happen, then we as a nation would be required to shake every aspect of our federal government to the core with indictments regards the cover up.

And every bit of historical information on LBJ would be re-centered around his role as the most treasonous American ever.

So, Paul, how much "do" you believe of Hunt's JFK "Big Event" confessional tape and story?

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Paul, from your post above I take it you feel E. Howard Hunt was in some way involved in the JFK assassination?

At least to some degree?

So many people, even here on this forum, discount Hunt's involvement and especially the account he shared with his son St. John Hunt, even though St. John Hunt has an actual  tape of his father stating this account ( I think no one disputes the tape actually being E. Howard Hunt ) with specific names mentioned by E.Hunt such as Morales, Frank Sturgis, Cord Meyer and LBJ himself.

Personally I have always been fascinated with Hunt's JFK "Big Event" end of life confessional tape.

If his account is true...we have an insider's account as to who planned and coordinated the JFK murder in Dallas, Texas, 11,22,1963!

An absolute "highest level insider"  who was deeply involved with some of the most important covert actions ever taken in the world of political espionage both domestically and foreign during this time period.

Hunt is such a high level "spy" he is involved with the highest levels of our government and secret government agencies and for a long time.

Any volunteered tape confession of something as mind blowing as his "Big Event" story

cannot be so easily dismissed because of this highest level background imo.

Yes, at the time of this taping Hunt did show some signs of dementia...at least regards his slower and more halting speaking. But compared to witnessing dementia in my own experience, his cognitive skills were pretty good over-all. 

And I do believe Hunt could have done this all for his son St. John Hunt thinking that his confessional tape might fetch a six figure sum from some national book publisher due to it's mind blowing content and context.

Still, the story itself is so incredible in who it implicates, if it was perceived to be "too good to be true" then E. Hunt and his son St. John Hunt tried a scheme that backfired.

I still can't fully believe that E.Howard Hunt could throw out something so outrageously government rule and lying shocking that if it was to be believed, could throw our entire nation, our government and our MSM into a state of righteous revolt.

If LBJ and Cord Meyer and Hunt's crew actually made the JFK assassination happen, then we as a nation would be required to shake every aspect of our federal government to the core with indictments regards the cover up.

And every bit of historical information on LBJ would be re-centered around his role as the most treasonous American ever.

So, Paul, how much "do" you believe of Hunt's JFK "Big Event" confessional tape and story?

 

 

Joe,

Good question. I suspect that elderly, half-senile, faltering E. Howard Hunt was engaged in a classic “limited hangout” i.e. a partial (but spectacular) truth designed to preserve a larger, more dangerous truth.

So what was true?

Hunt was involved, somehow. So say both the Marita Lorenz sworn statement and the Angleton/Helms memo, disputed though both may be.

Was LBJ a plotter/ prime mover?

I doubt it, although he may have had an inkling that something was in the works. His questions to Hoover about the shooting itself to me have the ring of innocence, not to mention his belief in a conspiracy, repeatedly voiced to his aides and others.

Cord Meyer? Maybe, but no evidence.

 William Harvey, David Morales?

Oh, very possibly - Harvey ran/managed Task Force W, had access to a wide range of covert executive action agents, and personally hated RFK “with a purple passion.” (Did Harvey hire the hit teams? Very possibly.)

David Morales?

Probably - who else would drunkenly gloat over JFK’s murder, if not someone connected to it?

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/David_Morales_-_We_Took_Care_of_That_SOB.html
 

So what did Hunt hold back?

That it was plotted and executed by people inside the CIA loyal to Allen Dulles, and Hunt, as paymaster, played a crucial role. Did Dulles engineer the assassination on behalf of other, unnamed (very wealthy, powerful and politically dominant) patrons?

Of course.

Dulles didn’t act on his own. This was a consensus decision, the collective desire of those whom C. Wright Mills called “The Power Elite.”

But only Allen Dulles had the connections, the knowledge and the skills to manipulate both the crime and the coverup.

Allen Dulles was the heart and soul of the CIA, and E. Howard Hunt was devoted to both with every fiber of his being.

To his dying day, Hunt was determined to preserve the stature of Dulles and his beloved CIA, even if that meant misleading his own sons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

!No, Howard Hunt was way too high up the CIA food chain (he knew way too much) to be burned as a patsy.

,Hunt took the fall for Watergate. I think he’d been wearing the patsy jacket for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William Harvey and Allen Dulles planned the JFK hit?  Dulles set up family friends of his girlfriend to host the family of The Communist Kennedy Killer?  Drunk-ass Harvey in Italy put the shooters together?

Bollocks.

Carl Jenkins planned the ambush and Charles Siragusa picked the shooters. Or so I’d speculate.

They both were the best.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...