Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[Glenn Nall]

10 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Hunt was a CIA employee, primarily a political officer not operations.  Martinez was a CIA employee, the best boat guide for Cuban operations missions that they had.  Sturgis was an informant for the CIA, starting around 1962, we have the documents on that.  He was not an employee, he was a willing and valued source.  As to Hall, he was a talker....the closest he came to the CIA and the FBI was as a voluntary source who provided little information beyond street gossip.

As Chris said, job titles are very important, they tell you not only the roles but what an individual could be expected to know.

On Phillips manuscript, it was strictly fictional. I've gone into that before here but there is no reason to take it literally and actually it may have been intended as intimidation - to let certain parties in the CIA know that Phillips could tell a lot more than he did if somebody decided to make him a scapegoat.  Pure speculation on my part but having studied Phillips for a very long time the last thing I would expect would be for it to be literally the truth; if anything it would be 180 degrees from it since that was his specialty .

 

Larry, I'd be tempted to think that the Watergate burglary went a bit beyond politics into operations... wouldn't you?

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Glen, good point but my take would be that in terms of Hunt's career at the CIA he had a day job and that was political action (normally as a money guy).  He was actually separated circa 64 to provide him with a special cover to operate over seas in support of the AM/WORLD Artime project - still political action rather than operations. And yes, it looks to me like his involvement with the Nixon White House was a very special sort of political action, probably intended more as a planted source for the Agency than anything else but to get deep inside Hunt needed to make himself really valuable hence his move into the plumbers.  Its probably good to point out that Hunt's tradecraft, even during his regular time at the Agency. was always poor...he held meetings in motel rooms and was overheard by the folks next door who reported it, he lost a briefcase. He consistently violated security protocols - so seeing him screw up so badly at the Watergate including leaving all sorts of traceable materials in his motel room is no big surprise.

Anyway, I take your point but my view is that Hunt always wanted to be a real spy and whenever he got a chance he played that role, although it was not really his assignment during most of his career.  He kept trying to be the kind of guy he wrote about his action novels though....and he talked a good enough game to convince some folks that he was when that was very far from reality....just my view of course.

 

[Paul Trejo]

45 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

you're absolutely positive Sturgis wasn't CIA? or Martino? or Hall?

Sturgis on board the Rex on Oct 31, 63...? and these guys leading the training in Pontchartrain (and Big Pine)...?

please.

depends on how strict you want to get with the word "agents," doesn't it. i s'pose if it don't fit your theory, strictness is needed.

Glenn,

Yes, I'm positive.  Sturgis, Martino and Hall were mercenaries -- low education and low paid mercenaries.  Lots of testosterone and mediocre brains.  Too few brains to be well-paid, professional "Agents" of the CIA.

Yes, it does matter how one defines the word "Agent" when one says CIA "Agent."   David Morales was a CIA "Agent."  Howard Hunt was a CIA "Agent".  David Atlee Phillips was a CIA "Agent".

Frank Sturgis, John Martino, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming and his Interpen boys were involved in the Cuban conflict, where the CIA had many "assets," and temporary help at low pay.  Mercenaries.  Not "Agents."  It matters.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Yes, I'm positive.  Sturgis, Martino and Hall were mercenaries -- low education and low paid mercenaries.  Lots of testosterone and mediocre brains.  Too few brains to be well-paid, professional "Agents" of the CIA.

Yes, it does matter how one defines the word "Agent" when one says CIA "Agent."   David Morales was a CIA "Agent."  Howard Hunt was a CIA "Agent".  David Atlee Phillips was a CIA "Agent".

Sturgis, Martino and Hall were involved in the Cuban conflict, where the CIA had many "assets," and temporary help at low pay.  Mercenaries.  Not "Agents."  It matters.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

it matters to you to keep your theory intact.

it matters to me because it were these "morons" who did the dirty work.

you might be a little more conservative in your assignation of those who lack "brains." you'll find yourself surprised one day.

[Glenn Nall]

7 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Hi Glen, good point but my take would be that in terms of Hunt's career at the CIA he had a day job and that was political action (normally as a money guy).  He was actually separated circa 64 to provide him with a special cover to operate over seas in support of the AM/WORLD Artime project - still political action rather than operations. And yes, it looks to me like his involvement with the Nixon White House was a very special sort of political action, probably intended more as a planted source for the Agency than anything else but to get deep inside Hunt needed to make himself really valuable hence his move into the plumbers.  Its probably good to point out that Hunt's tradecraft, even during his regular time at the Agency. was always poor...he held meetings in motel rooms and was overheard by the folks next door who reported it, he lost a briefcase. He consistently violated security protocols - so seeing him screw up so badly at the Watergate including leaving all sorts of traceable materials in his motel room is no big surprise.

Anyway, I take your point but my view is that Hunt always wanted to be a real spy and whenever he got a chance he played that role, although it was not really his assignment during most of his career.  He kept trying to be the kind of guy he wrote about his action novels though....and he talked a good enough game to convince some folks that he was when that was very far from reality....just my view of course.

 

yes. key word here being "planted." 

no doubt.

but he was in charge of an awful lot of cuban mercenary money and ops, wasn't he...?

Edited December 9, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Paul Trejo]

8 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

it matters to me because it were these "morons" who did the dirty work. 

That's just guesswork -- and anyway that CT is decades old, and has never been able to prove its claims.  Time for a new CT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

That's just guesswork -- and anyway that CT is decades old, and has never been able to prove its claims.  Time for a new CT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

"guesswork"

you're pretty liberal with that term, too.

me thinkest thou protesteth too much...

 

and what the hell is this "that CT?" I have presented no "CT." I've presented factual evidence that Sturgis was aboard the Rex on Oct 31, and that he hung out with E Martinez and Hunt and as in Watergate, and - oh, hell, you know all this. You just don't like it.

no. it's not time for a new conspiracy theory. it's time for a well reasoned one - a few of those which have stood the tests and which today gain momentum.

it's the new ones which are most suspect.

the evidence is old. the latest evidence is old. there is no new evidence but the old that has been revealed.

novel CTers who think themselves smarter than the rest are as well suspect.

and predictable.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Larry Hancock]

Glen, absolutely Hunt was trusted with a lot of money and with some key political action jobs. He was old cadre with the agency and was internally valued for his spy novels which some of the senior guys felt were good PR for the Agency (you even find that mentioned in documents).  Not trying to underplay his position at all, just to define it. Hunt had actually run the Mexico City station early in its history but he did have a habit of annoying people he didn't like and that didn't last long.  If  you liked his politics and he liked yours it was all good but he was opinionated enough to actually take himself out of his job on the Cuba project just before the BOP and Phillips had to pick up his duties for him.  Definitely a man with strong opinions and a good opinion of himself as well - probably better than his actual job performance justified but he seems to have been sincere and quite convincing.

[Glenn Nall]

1 minute ago, Larry Hancock said:

Glen, absolutely Hunt was trusted with a lot of money and with some key political action jobs. He was old cadre with the agency and was internally valued for his spy novels which some of the senior guys felt were good PR for the Agency (you even find that mentioned in documents).  Not trying to underplay his position at all, just to define it. Hunt had actually run the Mexico City station early in its history but he did have a habit of annoying people he didn't like and that didn't last long.  If  you liked his politics and he liked yours it was all good but he was opinionated enough to actually take himself out of his job on the Cuba project just before the BOP and Phillips had to pick up his duties for him.  Definitely a man with strong opinions and a good opinion of himself as well - probably better than his actual job performance justified but he seems to have been sincere and quite convincing.

yes, i wondered why he lost/gave up the BOP project just previous. and Mexico City... he did have his friends, but he sure had his enemies...

[Paul Trejo]

Sylvia Odio and Harry Dean agree about Lee Harvey Oswald -- that he had accomplices in late September 1963, who were taking Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City.

They did not comment about the Telephone Impersonation of Oswald that we read about the The Lopez Report (2003) and in Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014).  Bill Simpich (who has worked with Larry Hancock in the past) provided one of the most brilliant documents about Lee Harvey Oswald ever published in that free eBook.

Bill Simpich names CIA Agent David Morales as a likely suspect for the Oswald Telephone Impersonation, which spurred a Top Secret CIA Mole Hunt on October 2, 1963, IIRC.

David Morales was a serious CIA Agent.  Through a mercenary, Frank Sturgis, he recruited CIA Agent Howard Hunt to be a sidelines bagman.  Those were the only two verified professional CIA Agents who were involved in the plot to frame LHO for the JFK hit.

Everybody else who was named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen in the past 50 years were Paramilitary Mercenaries.  Not CIA Agents.

Though Silvia Odio and Harry Dean gave no opinion on these facts -- their placement of LHO in the company of Cuban Anticommunists and Radical Rightists is important.  Harry Dean specifically names Loran Hall and Larry Howard.  Loran Hall evoked Gerry Patrick Hemming, and vice versa.   These are among those who actually confessed.  We need to focus on the confessors.  That's my point.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

At what point did Silvio Odio "agree" that Oswald's "accomplices...were taking Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City"??

Please give me a citation where this was said by Odio.  [If Sylvia Odio never said this, than your statement is misleading at best, and at worst a willful untruth.]

Odio couldn't comment about the "[t]elephone impersonation of Oswald"  because she had NO firsthand knowledge of it.

But if it makes your theory work.....

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

At what point did Silvio Odio "agree" that Oswald's "accomplices...were taking Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City"??

Please give me a citation where this was said by Odio.  [If Sylvia Odio never said this, than your statement is misleading at best, and at worst a willful untruth.]

Odio couldn't comment about the "[t]elephone impersonation of Oswald"  because she had NO firsthand knowledge of it.

But if it makes your theory work.....

Mark,

Sylvia Odio said that "Leopoldo and Angelo" were taking Oswald "from New Orleans."  This is in her WC testimony.

Harry Dean said that "Lorenzo and Alonzo" were taking Oswald "to Mexico City."   This is in his well-known manuscript, "Crosstrails".

Syvlia Odio never met Oswald before or after, and never identified Loran Hall or Larry Howard before or after.  She had no idea what their business was aside from their 20-minute claims outside her front door that they were with the JURE and knew her father -- which were lies.  

Sylvia Odio remembers clearly that they said they came from New Orleans and had to get back on the road.  They didn't mention their ultimate destination.  They told her that their goals were the same as the goals of JURE -- the toppling of Fidel Castro from power.  They offered "Leon Oswald" to her as a helper in the JURE cause.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Everybody else who was named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen in the past 50 years were Paramilitary Mercenaries.  Not CIA Agents.

You couldn't go one post without making some ridiculous comment? You almost had it, you were this close ><.

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

You couldn't go one post without making some ridiculous comment? You almost had it, you were this close ><.

Chris,

Name one other suspect named by Jim Garrison or Joan Mellen who was clearly a CIA Agent.

Not Guy Banister.  Not David Ferrie.  Not Jack S. Martin.  Not Thomas Beckham.  Not Carlos Bringuier.  Not Eladio Del Valle. Not Loran Hall.  Not Larry Howard.  Not Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Not Johnny Martino.  Not Jack Ruby.  Not Fred Crisman.  Not Carlos Marcello.

Even Clay Shaw was at best a CIA informant -- which is not the same as a CIA Agent.

The common element of all the suspects named by both Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen in the past 50 years is their participation in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Starting with Jim Garrison (who otherwise made great contributions) a common error thread runs throughout 50 years of the JFK CT literature -- namely -- that virtually everybody involved in Fidel Castro assassination plots at 544 Camp Street, was also involved in the JFK assassination plot.

The only honest way to link the CIA with the JFK assassination is to blur the line of distinction between the two plots -- then the case can be made.  But once we distinguish between Fidel plotters and JFK plotters -- then the CIA-did-it CT breaks down.  

Also, once we distinguish between CIA Agents and CIA mercenaries, the CIA-did-it CT breaks down to nothing; we are left with only CIA rogues (Morales and Hunt).   Period.

Garrison and Mellen are authorities on New Orleans and 544 Camp Street.  It stops there.  They knew next to NOTHING about the Dallas plot, IMHO

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo
emphasis.

[Glenn Nall]

21 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Name one other suspect named by Jim Garrison or Joan Mellen who was clearly a CIA Agent.

Not Guy Banister.  Not David Ferrie.  Not Jack S. Martin.  Not Thomas Beckham.  Not Carlos Bringuier.  Not Eladio Del Valle. Not Loran Hall.  Not Larry Howard.  Not Gerry Patrick Hemming.  Not Johnny Martino.  Not Jack Ruby.  Not Fred Crisman.  Not Carlos Marcello.

Even Clay Shaw was at best a CIA informant -- which is not the same as a CIA Agent.

The common element of all the suspects named by both Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen in the past 50 years is their participation in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Starting with Jim Garrison (who otherwise made great contributions) a common error thread runs throughout 50 years of the JFK CT literature -- namely -- that virtually everybody involved in Fidel Castro assassination plots at 544 Camp Street, was also involved in the JFK assassination plot.

The only honest way to link the CIA with the JFK assassination is to blur the line of distinction between the two plots -- then the case can be made.  But once we distinguish between Fidel plotters and JFK plotters -- then the CIA-did-it CT breaks down.  

Also, once we distinguish between CIA Agents and CIA mercenaries, the CIA-did-it CT breaks down to nothing; we are left with only CIA rogues (Morales and Hunt).   Period.

Garrison and Mellen are authorities on New Orleans and 544 Camp Street.  It stops there.  They knew next to NOTHING about the Dallas plot, IMHO

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

yet still, Paul, you're glued to the word "agent" when there are so many nuances of duties and expectations of CIA "connected" personnel which easily circumvent the standard role of "agent."

[edit] IMHO.

is this on purpose, or simple ignorance of facts?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Glenn Nall