Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dan Hardway's Declaration about the HSCA


Recommended Posts

Having just read Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, I find your leaning toward the premise that "LHO was not there" in MC rather intriguing; mainly because one of Newman's main points in his book is how there were considerable irregularities at CIA HDQS' with the filing of the reports concerning LHO's time in MC. Newman postulates that these filing irregularities demonstrated an "unusual" interest in LHO's activities in MC. So if LHO wasn't in MC, what does that do to Newman's premise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the unsupported premise that Oswald/MEXI had anything to do with the murder of JFK?

"Oswald and the CIA" -- patsies in arms.

Isn't the Dulles connection to the Paines a bit...obvious?

Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy seized control of Bay of Pigs planning and literally ran the operation into the ground.

Dulles took the fall.

Once a patsy always a patsy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion Dan D. it doesn't do anything to his main thesis.

I reviewed John's book a long time ago. Its over at CTKA, if you want to read it.

In my opinion, the key point of his book is that, because of the irregularities in the file--seven weeks before the assassination--the whole alarm system that should have been enacted about Oswald upon his return from MC, none of that happened. For example, the FLASH warning being removed, the two split memos about Oswald issued by Angleton, the lack of any follow up inquiry by the CIA between October 3 and November 22, which the authors of the Lopez Report were shocked did not happen.

And probably the key point, the lies and deceptions of Phillips and Goodpasture. Phillips lying about why the cable about Kostikov was delayed by seven days. (When I asked Eddie Lopez about this he said with a straight face, "Jim, don't you know, they used Pony Express.") And the myriad lies by Goodpasture about why she sent the photo of the KGB officer who she knew was not a Mystery Man. And further why she lied about the tapes being erased when she knew they were not.

These kinds of things are not all after the fact. Many of them happened at the time, or around the time, Oswald was supposed to be there. So the problems in the evidentiary chain would largely have been marginalized if the CIA station had come up with either a photo or two of Oswald, or his real voice on a tape. It is now over 52 years and counting and they have not been able to do it.

And in fact, Phillips lied about the failure of photo coverage in order to cover up the fact that there should have been multiple pictures of Oswald available at the time: that is if he was there. It got so bad that both Tanenbaum, and then Lopez and Hardway wanted to indict Phillips for perjury. On different counts. And Danny and Eddie wanted to indict them both--Phillips and Goodpasture.

Now, thinking logically--that is in the real world, which usually escapes us with the JFK case--if there was a photo record, or tape record of Oswald doing what the CIA said he did, why would these officers risk going to jail if they did not need to do that?

And why would Angleton fly down to MC the minute Goodpasture told him Scott was dead to get everything out of his safe?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, here is my review of Oswald and the CIA, if you have not read it:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/newman.html

In my opinion, it is an important book. Its amazing how much we did not know about Oswald.

And how much the Warren Commission lied about having access to the record. If you recall, I think it was on the 25th anniversary, David Belin was on NIghtline, and he said ge gad seen every CIA document on Oswald back in 1964. What a xxxx. We still don't have every CIA document on Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Firstly let me say that I value your work highly. Destiny Betrayed Second Edition is one of the seminal works on the JFK assassination. I have read Parkland Reclaimed, but not The Assassins. I follow your CTKA site also, in fact my reading of your review of Oswald and the CIA a while ago lead me to purchase and read the book. As for the issue of whether LHO did actually go to MC, I don't see how this question can be answered too any high degree of certainty. As you write in your review, there are problems with the timeline of the embassy visits, the lack of photos of LHO at the embassies, a voice recording that doesn't match LHO's voice, LHO speaking Spanish, LHO speaking bad Russian, etc. But who's to say that another operation(s) was not in play to enhance(or discredit) LHO actions in MC. To paraphrase Angleton , intelligence operations are like a "wilderness of mirrors". As you write in your review of Oswald and The CIA 2008 editon,

"In his new Epilogue for this 2008 edition, Newman explains why only someone who a.) Understood the inner workings of the national security state, and b.) Understood and controlled Oswald's files, could have masterminded something as superhumanly complex as this scheme. One in which the conspiracy itself actually contained the seeds that would sprout the cover-up."

I agree with this notion that a plot (rogue) within a plot (sanctioned) was the genius of this scheme because it forced an immediate and lasting cover-up by the institutions involved in the sanctioned plot least they be held culpable for the events of 11/22/63. What was the sanctioned plot? I don't know but I believe it had its beginnings after JFK refused to endorse Operation Northwoods.

Edited by Dan Doyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much Donald.

Hopefully people who have not read Newman's book, or my review, will now read it.

The quantum leap the critical community has made in regards to Oswald is one of the most important developments since the ARRB.

Which is one reason why Stephen King's crappy book and the crappy movie made out of it was such a disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim

Newman's book is a slog, not an easy read. I don't read fiction so I am unfamiliar with Stephen King's work, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the MSM make another movie in the spirit of Oliver Stone's JFK.......... because the consequences might lead to an ARRB Redux

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much Donald.

Hopefully people who have not read Newman's book, or my review, will now read it.

The quantum leap the critical community has made in regards to Oswald is one of the most important developments since the ARRB.

Which is one reason why Stephen King's crappy book and the crappy movie made out of it was such a disgrace.

"One of the most important developments" -- in what?

The study of the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Since Oswald very likely had nothing to do with the murder of JFK the assumption that Oswald's handlers were involved in JFK's murder begs the question.

The closest Jim Garrison got to investigating the murder of JFK was putting prosector Col Pierre Finck on the witness stand.

Other than that, it was an investigation into the murder of LHO, not JFK.

The conflating of the assassination of Oswald with the assassination of JFK is as widespread as it is wrongheaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim

Newman's book is a slog, not an easy read. I don't read fiction so I am unfamiliar with Stephen King's work, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the MSM make another movie in the spirit of Oliver Stone's JFK.......... because the consequences might lead to an ARRB Redux

I agree that it is difficult to read. That is why I wrote a long review. Hopefully people will read that as the Cliff Notes version.

But I should add one point.

Neither Newman nor the Lopez Report deal with the alleged trip down to Mexico City or the trip home from there.

I think that is a mistake. Both Armstrong and David Josephs did deal with it. At length.

IMO, it is very hard to put Oswald on those buses after those two analyses. In fact, the ride home is somewhat of a joke.

Therefore, if Oswald was there, how did he get there? And how did he get back?

Recall, this is seven weeks before the assassination.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I kept links that I find and then save them for later. But recently I found a link and there was a quote and it said, in essence, "When all of the [government] papers on Oswald are finally released, the final proof of him not being in MC will be revealed." Does anyone have that link?

In my opinion, I don't think he was down there. It was just one more way they were trying to set him up, like they did during his showy handing out of leaflets in NO, his fight, his TV "Yes, I'm a communist" interview, and the rather poorly done back yard photo fakery.

One thing I've always wondered about. There's plenty of things people do and get attention for because of the insatiable beast that's the media today. But I would love to know who called the TV station that day to send a camera man down to where Oswald was handing out those leaflets. We're talking about a pretty minor event by 1963 standards. Yet, there was the camera man filming this showy event.

Even Hoover told Johnson that the man they had in the Dallas jail was not the same man they had photos and voice recordings of in MC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MW: I wish I kept links that I find and then save them for later. But recently I found a link and there was a quote and it said, in essence, "When all of the [government] papers on Oswald are finally released, the final proof of him not being in MC will be revealed." Does anyone have that link?

​I would love to see this one also.

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...