Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[George Sawtelle]

Jason

In Apr 1959 Castro visits the US and meets with VP Nixon. After the meeting, Nixon says in so many words that Castro in either incredibly naive about communism or is under communist discipline.

In Mar 1960 the US begins training guerrillas in the canal zone of Panama and subsequently Guatemala for an invasion of Cuba. (Chronology of Bay of Pigs)

It had become apparent that in early 1960 the US was planning an invasion of Cuba. The US government realized Castro was a communist and that he was to be "sawed off", in the words of Eisenhower.

In July 1960, based on the letter addressed to Kennedy written by Harry Dean that you posted on pg 15, was elected Secretary of the FPCC.

In July 1961, one year after he is elected Secretary of the FPCC, the letter you posted is sent and in it Dean says he found communist documents in the packet of information that he was given when he was elected. Based on the communist literature he found and concern for our country Dean decides to inform the government that the FPCC was under communist influence. It certainly appears then that Dean is anti-communist.

Therefore it is clear that before Dean became Secretary of the FPCC the sentiment within US government circles and throughout the US is that Castro is a communist . Yet Dean believes in Castro and his revolution (he indicated that he was a friend of the Cuban revolution) and only came forward when he found communist documents a year earlier. 

So there seems to be a conflict with Dean's belief system. On one hand he admires Castro who he should know is a communist and on the other he is anti-communist who desires to inform on the organization that he believes is communist inspired.

Maybe you can unravel the apparent discrepancy or maybe Dean can.

[Harry J.Dean]

George dude, Castro was not a Communist, but upon learning U.S. plans against the Revolution was

unwillingly convinced by the hate filled anti-American Che Guevara to respond. Castro then betrayed

his own commitment to the original Revolution. It is so Castro was trapped evermore into his Guevara

stance, there was no turning back. The true Revolution never really had an opportunity to survive even

though the U.S. had favored and aided  it until 3 Jan. 1961.

 

[George Sawtelle]

Harry

Would Russia spend millions and risk nuclear war to protect a revolution that was not communist?

The historical record indicates Cuba's domestic policies are rooted in communism. Many of those policies were instituted after Che was killed. 

In Mar 1960 the US begin training guerrillas in the canal zone of Panama to invade Cuba.The US could not accept a communist government 90 miles from it's shore and Cuba exporting communist revolution to Latin America.

The US believed it was dealing with a communist regime in Cuba. 

 

 

[Jason Ward]

On 10/5/2017 at 7:38 PM, Harry J.Dean said:

Jason Ward, in further answer your question " re: why joined  FPCC. It is likely you will locate reports of 

original phone calls to FBI about my fearful self concern, of being caught between  Castro and President

Eisenhower's 3 Jan 1961 diplomatic break with The Cuban Revolutionary Government. 

Those calls will expose our (FBI & I)  in depth details and worry of being charged as an unregistered- agent-of-a-

foreign Government,  ie; member of  26 July Movement and officer of Castro's Network in U.S. Fair Play Play For

Cuba Committee. It was determined then that I was to willingly serve the Bureau (Chicago) while remaining in

position.

Many thanks, Harry.

Life interrupted my JFK research this week so I'll look in to your points further asap.

 

regards

Jason

[Jason Ward]

30 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Harry

Would Russia spend millions and risk nuclear war to protect a revolution that was not communist?

The historical record indicates Cuba's domestic policies are rooted in communism. Many of those policies were instituted after Che was killed. 

In Mar 1960 the US begin training guerrillas in the canal zone of Panama to invade Cuba.The US could not accept a communist government 90 miles from it's shore and Cuba exporting communist revolution to Latin America.

The US believed it was dealing with a communist regime in Cuba. 

 

 

Hi George,

The Americans backed dozens of regimes that were not democratic, so why should we be confused if the Soviets back a regime that was not communist?

In reality, the major communist regimes of which we speak were not communist regimes at all - they were brutal authoritarian regimes masquerading as communist regimes to sell themselves to their own people and the world.   Sweden and Norway today are arguably closer to true communism than the Soviets or Chinese ever were.   Those true experts of the international political scene have always known this; the Nixons and Goldwaters knew that communism by itself is kind of a harmless idea.  But a brutal dictatorship pretending to be communist is much more dangerous because they have all the aggression and militarism of Hitler but have the proletarian popularity of sharing the wealth equally like Gandhi.

Maybe my point is that these labels around "communist" regimes are only labels used in media-fueled rhetoric for public consumption.   The Soviets would happily back a democracy, a military dictatorship, a monarchy, or anything else if they could place missiles 90 miles from Florida.   What Putin is doing in Syria today is exactly the same as what the Soviets were doing with Cuba 50+ years ago - the nominal type of government is only a public relations talking point.

 

regards

 

Jason

Edited October 7, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

Just to share some interesting little clues still largely unrecognized in the research, below are the handwritten notes of a researcher in one of the 1970s investigations.  Since this is not readable by OCR very few in the CT community ever discover resources like this.  Here's some intriguing names around Oswald - New Orleans - Cubans:

 

 

[Jason Ward]

I had to travel and take care of the usual work and personal chores this week, which means I did not do one minute worth of more JFK research.  But it also gave me some time to evaluate what I've read in the raw data over the last 2-3 months.  Here are my conclusions and I hope anyone will comment or criticize:

 

1. The assassination was a work of desperation and was a big gamble.  The people who wanted the assassination felt the risks were worth it, and were prepared for total death and destruction if they failed.  In Paul Trejo's Rightest theory -  they were certain the US was on a catastrophic course with progressive domestic policies (desegregation and civil rights legislation) combined with a move towards global government and outsourcing US policy to the UN.  Too many CT's fail to account for the kind of conspirator who is willing to suffer failure and prison if they are discovered. I only see those who are sure they have almost nothing to lose participating in the assassination.        

    

2. The Cubans are largely irrelevant to the assassination.  They could not manage to govern their own country and they had zero interest in doing what it takes to establish democracy to their own country.  Their way of life from 1959 - mid 1960s is to tell the CIA they can overthrow Castro if they receive more money.  They get tons of money.  Nothing happens.  A few Batistianos blame Kennedy for Castro, but most Cubans are just indifferent and prefer the Miami lifestyle living off CIA money.  The Cubans lack the motive or ability to be meaningful players in the assassination.  Likewise, US foreign policy towards Cuba is only a sideshow in the assassination, it is not pivotal. 

    

3. There is a difference between the CIA and the many 1000s of people who have ever received money from a CIA operation.   David Ferrie seems to have made a few flights in a project that received CIA funding.  This doesn't mean he is CIA.  Carlos Bringuier was the New Orleans head of an organization that received some CIA funding.  This doesn't mean he is CIA.   David Hemming, Sturgis, a few hundred Cubans, Clay Shaw, George DeMohrenschildt and others are all equally distant from the CIA.  None of these guys were CIA, they were, at most, related to the CIA only as much as the neighborhood boy you hire to mow your lawn or feed your pets is related to your family. 

    

4. There is a gap in every CT theory I've seen.   There are those with the motivation and strategic wish for Kennedy's death, but there is a gap between them and the operational shooters and support staff in Dallas.   At the moment I believe guys in Dallas like Fritz, Tippit, Curry, Decker, and Harry Holmes are entirely too redneck and un-Ivy League to be anything but another version of their pissed off KKK brethren in place from South Carolina to Texas.  This isn't Bush-Dulles CIA, this is David Duke/Joseph Milteer racist reactionaries in action.

    

5. There is a lot more out there undiscovered and which will not be released this year because everyone is chasing CIA files related to the assassination or an assassination-suspect; if the CIA is not involved the upcoming file releases may not get us very far.

 

Jason

Edited October 7, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

Jason - very interesting posts.

i like to look at who profited. The Cubans did not. But neither did the kkk and their brethren. Who did gain? The MIC, the Cold War advocates who wanted Vietnam to be a battleground, those who like the concept of endless enemies. For me that points to the Pentagon and certain CIA officers. Have you taken a good look at retired army colonels Jack Crichton and Frank Brandstetter who founded the 488th reserve army intelligence unit in Texas?

[Jason Ward]

23 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - very interesting posts.

i like to look at who profited. The Cubans did not. But neither did the kkk and their brethren. Who did gain? The MIC, the Cold War advocates who wanted Vietnam to be a battleground, those who like the concept of endless enemies. For me that points to the Pentagon and certain CIA officers. Have you taken a good look at retired army colonels Jack Crichton and Frank Brandstetter who founded the 488th reserve army intelligence unit in Texas?

Hi Paul,

You have a good point to raise about the Vietnam War.   That is the probably the biggest outcome of a LBJ presidency that we can point to with certainty.   LBJ came to despise the generals, the Pentagon, the Cold Warriors who promised falling dominoes if the war was lost --- and I don't see how killing JFK guaranteed the war.  LBJ afaik let himself get persuaded more and more by the military brass because he came in trusting them while JFK had already grown cynical of them - killing JFK is no guarantee of the Vietnam War as far as I can see.

I agree we should look at who benefits from the assassination, but realize that the law of unintended consequences is usually more powerful than intended consequences.  The actual beneficiaries of JFK's death may not be the ones who planned his death; and the planners of JFK's death may have gained nothing at all.   Look at what would have happened if de Gaulle would have actually been assassinated.  The OAS would not have got Algeria back, the militarists would not have taken over France, even though that's what they thought would happen.   The right wing freaks have an inaccurate perception of public reaction.  They think blaming the assassination of a national leader (or other false flag operations) on an enemy will move people to the hard right because it worked in Hitler's Germany, but it never works as well in a free democracy.

No, I haven't looked at Crichton and Brandstetter.  If they don't exist in primary source material I don't look at them.

 

regards

Jason

Edited October 7, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

46 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

...

Jack Crichton and Frank Brandstetter who founded the 488th reserve army intelligence unit in Texas?

Paul, just for you I'll take a quick look at these two at the Mary Ferrell site.  I don't see anything that concerns me but of course share what you think is relevant if you like.

...

1 Crichton

This is a bad start from Paul Kangas in The Realist:

"The CIA put Texas millionaire and CIA agent George Bush in charge of recruiting Cuban exiles into the CIA's invasion army. Bush was working with another Texas oilman, Jack Crichton, to help him with the invasion."

http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/bush&jfk.shtml

....There's zero evidence George Bush had anything to do with recruiting Cuban Exiles into the "CIA's invasion army", and out of 2 million plus documents from the CIA and FBI at Mary Ferrell there is no mention of Jack Crichton helping George Bush or any other Cubans.  This sounds like typical CT bulls*it which says that if anyone ever knew, stood near to, or had a conversation with George Bush they are in the CIA and out to kill Kennedy/invade Cuba/control the entire world.

...

2 Chricton

Not sinister to me:

 

...

3 Brandsetter 

...

 

4 Brandsetter

...

5 Brandsetter

 

[Paul Brancato]

The Kangas info actually comes from Fabian Escalante, former head of Cuban Intel under Castro. 

If you look at Bush's record as VP you will see that the Cuban exiles were close to him. There is plenty of circumstantial info indicating that Bush worked on behalf of CIA interests during the BOP operation. I have no idea why would so quickly assume that Bush had no history with the Cuban exiles. 

Brandstetter is of interest o me for many reasons, not the least of which isnthat the head of French Intel who defected to the US in Nov 1963, Phillipe de Vosjoli, visited Brandstetter in Acapulco immediately after Nov 22 1963 and stayed for a few weeks. One wonders how they knew each other. 

Even though your research into non CIA docs is interesting, to suggest that if you can't find incriminating info therein means there is none, or that without such links you are not interested, strikes me as too limited. Conspirators do their level best to hide their deeds, within and outside of government, and often have cover stories to explain their presence somewhere or with someone. I've seen evidence of this so often, and I am sure you have too. 

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

 Conspirators do their level best to hide their deeds, within and outside of government, and often have cover stories to explain their presence somewhere or with someone. I've seen evidence of this so often, and I am sure you have too. 

Paul,

Can you share some of this evidence?

...the evidence you've seen of government conspirators often hiding their deeds with cover stories to explain their presence somewhere or with someone?

Cites and links aren't necessary, just tell me what you know.

 

Jason

 

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

If you look at Bush's record as VP you will see that the Cuban exiles were close to him. There is plenty of circumstantial info indicating that Bush worked on behalf of CIA interests during the BOP operation. I have no idea why would so quickly assume that Bush had no history with the Cuban exiles. 

 

Paul,

As part of an overly generous compensation package for their "work" in the US anti-Castro efforts (ie taking money and accomplishing nothing), the ex-Batista criminals who supported toppling Castro were kept in contact with some US intelligence officers.  SOME, but only a few, of the Cubans once in the whole ridiculous CIA effort to topple Castro were incorporated into later CIA operations having nothing to do with Cuba.

Felix Rodriguez is the most famous of these type of guys.  Like the Watergate buglers, these Cubans were at various degrees of trustworthiness and usefulness.  Rodriguez was a fully qualified CIA officer who did work in Vietnam and elsewhere after the Cuban fiascos, most of the rest of them were just at the fringes of former CIA operations and made themselves available for adventures and mercenary activities.   

I find no evidence Bush was in contact with any of these Cubans in 1963.  

As he became more powerful in the Nixon administration and later, Bush got closer to these guys insofar as they were useful for the then-current-operations such as Letelier, Vietnam, Nicaraguan Contras, etc.   The way the CT community retroactively attaches Bush to JFK and every Cuban who has ever lived because he needed Cubans in his various Latin American projects as CIA director, VP, and P is beyond the realm of acceptable speculation in my view.  It doesn't qualify as circumstantial evidence, it qualifies as fantasy and speculation.

George Bush was not born as the secret master of the world's destiny at age zero, his career is commensurate with his ongoing advances and political fortunes/failures.   In 63 he is a young oilman with good political ties and very slight intelligence ties.  Bush is not responsible for every event in the 20th century through today as I frequently see claimed in the CT community.

 

regards

 

Jason

Edited October 7, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

... 

Even though your research into non CIA docs is interesting, to suggest that if you can't find incriminating info therein means there is none, or that without such links you are not interested, strikes me as too limited. 

...

Paul,

As we've mentioned before, my feeling is that we have about 99% of the CT community interested in speculation and circumstantial evidence.  What possible progress could adding my own efforts to this hugely popular technique of research accomplish?   

I prefer written evidence and witness testimony.  Otherwise, it exists only in someone's mind insofar as my interaction with the JFK CT community is concerned.  We've got plenty of speculators - we don't need more.

 

Jason

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Jason Ward