Dealey Plaza UK Canterbury Seminar 2018

[Guest]

The 16th Dealey Plaza UK Canterbury Seminar

held at n The Old Sessions House Lecture Theatre Canterbury Christ Church University

 

28th / 29th April 2018

 

 

Saturday 28th April

 

09.40m – 09.50am Introduction to the Seminar by Stuart Galloway

 

09.50am – 10.50am Harold “Skip” Rydberg by Barry Keane

 

10.50am – 11.10am Break: Coffee/Tea

 

11.10am – 12.10pm Interrogations of LHO-1 by Bart Kamp

12.10pm – 1.40pm LUNCH That means of to the pub 

1.40pm - 2.40pm Interrogations of LHO-2 by Bart Kamp

2.40pm – 3.40pm Staff D and the magic button by Larry Hancock 

3.50pm – 4.10pm Break: Tea/Coffee

4.10pm – 5.10pm Q & A with Malcolm Blunt with B Kamp



Dinner at the Abbotts Barton Hotel – 7.30pm for 8.00pm

Sunday 29th April

09.30am – 10.30am The DPUK Auction with Mike Dworetsky 

10.30am – 11.45pm Evidence of Gunmen in D.P. by David Percox

11:45am - 12.30pm Jim Jenkins/William Matson Law at Lancer 2013 with Peter Mellor

12.30pm – 1.40pm LUNCH ( Buffet in the Lecture Theatre)

1.40pm – 2.40 pm Q & A with John Newman and B.Kamp

2.40pm – 3.40pm Jim Di Eugenio on JFK's foreign policy and the declassified files

3:40pm – 3.50pm Closure of the Seminar by Stuart Galloway

 

 

New members are most welcome to attend. Please downlaod a form from http://dealeyplazauk.org.uk/pdfArticles/Membership_Application_form.pdf and submit.

On the 27th we meet in the afternoon to chat and go for Italian in the evening. The real stuff starts on Saturday at Christ Church UNI in Canterbury.

See you there.

Costs for members

Two day seminar including tea and coffee on Saturday - £35

Dinner at Best Western (Abbots Barton) - £37 (we have our own room)

Buffet lunch in The Old Sessions House on Sunday - £7

Total = £79 (£42 without Dinner)



Attendance Saturday only - £20

Attendance Sunday only - £24 (includes Buffet)

More info @ http://dealeyplazauk.org.uk/index.html

 

 

We will video a few talks so they will appear on YouTube in May at some point and I will add them inside this thread.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Bart Kamp

[Barry Keane]

Many thanks to Bart for his hard work helping to set this event up!

[Guest]

Thank you Barry.

I have added the specific venue at the UNI I had omitted that.

[Guest]

 

[Robert Harper]

Thanks so much. We now have yet an additional character to appreciate in this sad saga.

[Guest]

Bill Harvey, Staff D and QJ/WIN by Larry Hancock

PDF of PPT file is HERE

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Bart Kamp

[Larry Hancock]

Special acknowledgement needs to be given to David Boylan for my remarks in regard to the most current names and references relating to WIROGUE - which I shamelessly  added without giving due credit during my presentation.... 

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

https://www.spreaker.com/user/thelonegunman/ep-146-2018-malcolm-blunt-interview-w-ba

The Lone Gun Man Podcast, thank you Rob Clark.

Recapping DPUK seminar in Canterbury followed by my interview with Malcolm Blunt.

The video of this talk will be posted next week.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Bart Kamp

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 6:47 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Special acknowledgement needs to be given to David Boylan for my remarks in regard to the most current names and references relating to WIROGUE - which I shamelessly  added without giving due credit during my presentation.... 

 

Mr Hancock, I have just listened to your fascinating presentation and wondered if you might answer a couple of questions on it:

 

1. You mentioned Harvey being brought into Staff D and an assassination attempt being made on Lamumba. Does your research indicate that Harvey initiated assassination attempts? The short History you gave of Harvey suggested an intelligence gatherer, not necessarily a character who was going to embark on regime change actions.

2.  A subject of general fascination in this field is speculation on the motives of RFK post-assassination. I think you are suggesting RFK was pursuing the elimination of Castro while JFK was pursuing détente. Do you think this explains RFK's failure to pursue or facilitate investigations?

3. You are expounding an interesting alternative to the 'Deep State'. You are suggesting the 'Socially Connected State'. Am I getting that right?

 

Many thanks in advance.

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Eddy,  I'll certainly try with some answers:

First, I see no evidence of Harvey himself being directly involved in organizing the Lumumba affair, that was coming directly from the office of the CIA Director who was himself responding to what he felt was an order from the President.  This chain of events is well documented at this point and I write a good bit about it in NEXUS.  The whole effort was ill conceived even from a tactical standpoint and is reflected in the fact that those involved including the two assets from Europe (whose main credentials were that both held Belgian passports) didn't know each other and that the Chief of Station was clueless about the whole affair.  He thought the messages he had been getting about removing Lumumba meant political action not assassination.  Harvey himself just came in on the end of that, how much he even knew about it is uncertain; the bottom line is that he was simply referred to QJ/WIN as an asset - a spotter - who could help in his new European recruiting efforts.  He was given other leads of the same nature for different countries.  Harvey certainly did not have the personal experience with assassination that certain of his predecessors, like Bissel, had.  You can tell from his own notes that when he received the assignment it was new to him and something he had to seek advice on to set up, especially at an executive assassinations level.  Harvey had not even been an operations field officer - someone like David Morales had been and had experience in tactical assassination projects as far back as Guatemala.

Second, while its no doubt RFK was the main figure in pushing new anti-Castro initiatives via the SGA circa 1963 and its also true that the Cuban exiles they were dealing with kept pitching killing Castro, exactly what Harvey had been doing in terms of assassination related to Mongoose may well not have been known to RFK -  and to what extent that Mongoose project continued may well have been compartmentalized as it had been earlier.  Certainly the fact is that Harvey went ballistic when the subject of assassination was even vaguely mentioned in Special Group meetings. That suggests that is was not something to be shared in any fashion other than within the circle of say Helms/Harvey/Angleton and whoever was told anything operational was the level of Morales at JM/WAVE operations. It appears to have been a Helms initiative project and he is the one who signed off on the budget Harvey was using. We do know that RFK also warned JFK about his back channel approach to Castro. 

It would be foolish for me to say that I fathom what was going on in RFK's head after the assassination. My best speculation is simply that he was aware of so many things both he and JFK had been doing that put JFK at risk that it was simply numbing.  I do believe both men knew that JFK was at risk, they were aware of threats but they were natively risk takers and had moved forward, when the worst happened it was simply too much for RFK, at least for a time. 

On your third point,  actually I've moved on to a concept of what I think of as Deep History.  I feel the term Deep State assumes far more coordination, structure and planning (and far more long term continuity) than what actually happens in the real world.  My history studies over periods of decades and centuries lead me to the view that real life is far more chaotic than that, with competing agendas and power struggles at virtually all economic and political levels.  For that matter I think the term Deep State has essentially been "stolen" and is currently being politicized, just as is the term fake news - adapted in daily use as a talking point for certain power bases and agendas.  My view is that you have to take "slices" of history and each slice may only last months or at most a couple of years as competing forces jockey for power and shift tactics.  Capturing long term patterns among those power shifts is what I attempted in Shadow Warfare and have moved on to in my new work Creating Chaos.  And I do find patterns, depressing patterns, patterns that are repetitive but not patterns that are tied to any particular Deep State construct.

Anyway, a long winded and rambling answer so I hope at least part of it was intelligible and helpful to some extent.

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Mr Hancock, the best compliment I think I can give you is that I hope you live a very long time! We need you.

Thank you very much for  your clarifying words on 'Deep History'. I entirely agree with your sentiment that the term 'Deep State' has been hijacked, by lazy hijackers. 

Without wishing to make assumptions about any hypothesis you have on the assassination, I wonder if there may be a tantalising means of evidencing a 'Rogue element':

If there was a surface element of the CIA who were unaware of a plot to assassinate JFK, then when it happened it must have created an element of shock. I have read that there certainly is evidence of this shock. I read that Jefferson Morley thinks Angleton may have been unaware of the assassination for example.

"All I can say is there is a lot we don’t know. Was Angleton running Oswald? Or was someone else? There’s some evidence that makes me think Angleton was surprised by Kennedy’s assassination. Bill Simpich thinks Angleton was not part of a plot to kill JFK for reasons that make sense. So rather than commit to a speculative position without direct evidence, I’ll just say I don’t know. Because I don’t." - J Morley

So, like the people running up the grassy knoll, because their senses indicated the direction of fire, is there evidence of shocked actors metaphorically focussing on the guilty?

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Eddie, in answer I will say that personally I find considerable indication of "rogue action" before the assassination and a good bit of evidence that of concern at the highest levels of the CIA and NSC after the fact that there had been a rogue action, involving at least some CIA officers either in a conspiracy if not the attack itself.  I lay that out in considerable detail in NEXUS so there's no worry about disclosing my hypotheses, I haven't changed my views since I did that book

Bottom line, I think that the stimulus for the conspiracy was two fold, within certain exile social networks it was stimulated by JFK's actions in settling the missile crisis without ousting Castro and that "track" began as early as the winter of 62/63.   However I think a separate track opened up in spring 63 when Angleton began discussing the back channel communications with Cuba and Castro's outreach with Harvey.   That message was repeated at JM/WAVE by Harvey and Morales and a track 2 action to trigger action against JFK as a traitor began by late summer. 

To answer your question, I don't think Angleton did know the specifics of that conspiracy however he was certainly well connected enough to realize after the fact there had been one,  his "I don't know who struck John" would be literally true, just without the addition of "but I know someone did and I have my suspicions of who".

One of the indications of individuals suspecting that individuals in the exile community were involved comes by the secret investigation conducted using the Cuban Intel Group at JM/WAVE, an investigation Shackley about but which was performed and which likely never got out of Miami.  One good tactic to look for weaknesses is to do your own investigation and find out who is willing to expose you, and make sure they don't.