Tipping Point serialization now in progress on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site

[Larry Hancock]

I have no doubt that the April meeting involved talk, especially during the drinking sessions, that somebody should kill that SOB. Its also quite likely that talk went into more detail about how such a thing could be done, using well trained Cuban volunteers who they knew hated JFK, even discussing some of the tactics, tools and assets they were all familiar with from their years of efforts to kill Castro. Some level of "plotting", could have developed in those conversations.

There is also good reason to believe that independently there had been talk inside some of the Cuban exile groups about not just seeking revenge but removing JFK as an obstacle between them and the overthrow of Castro.

We find a letter within the AMWORLD documents, written to Artime and copied to Quintero, that no action against Castro was possible with JFK in the picture. Don't recall the exact date on that but it was that fall.

We also know there were threats against JFK as early as his Orange Bowl appearance at the time of the Brigade's return. But what I've tried to do is separate the talk, perhaps even some fairly minimal plotting and actions (such as a rifleman and a bomb associated with that trip to Florida), from what in reality was a much more complex plan (and conspiracy) to kill JFK that focused specifically on Dallas. 

Look back at the People in Motion section and you find good indications for when the Dallas plot begins and the period in which it evolved. My focus in Tipping Point was to dial down specifically on the conspiracy, the assets and the actors who killed the President in Dallas - I have no doubt some of those people had been talking about killing him before September, but see no solid evidence that a concrete plan was developed. What I do see is that there was a "tipping point" where all that talk jelled into action and a specific plan for Dallas was developed and put into motion in a relatively short period of time.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Larry Hancock

[Anthony Thorne]

Okay thanks Larry, that does make sense. I’ll read again with that in mind.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I am fascinated by 'Tipping Point' and very grateful to Larry Hancock for his generosity and excellent analysis. The process thus far described appears extraordinarily high risk. The descriptions of the disagreement within organisations and governance suggest to me a plan impossible to carry out without fatal flaw or discovery. I'm not saying the assassination was flawless but the flaws haven't gained traction and the cover-up has worked superbly. I'm in no position to challenge anything within Tipping Point but the idea of a plan being hatched in the timescale proposed looks like breakneck speed and more likely to fail than succeed. 

[Larry Hancock]

I've tried to avoid discussing Tipping Point here rather than in the book section of the forum but I would agree that the Dallas plot was high risk - although comparable to any major political assassination involving paramilitary action, certainly no more than the attempted attacks on Castro and for that matter other assassinations of major political figures. The people I've called out were mentally prepared for that sort of risk and for penetrating and operation in a far more secure and denied environment. Which brings up the point that there may well have been back up attack plans in Dallas and we only know about the one which actually succeeded. 

As I said recently in another post, the people who risk such attacks know its all or none, if they succeed the chaos will cover their action from a tactical standpoint.  If they fail the world falls on them.

Segment 5 will expand on some of the points you mention here Eddy, including the actual nature of the cover up as well as what was supposed to happen but did not when the full plan failed early in the afternoon after the murder of the President.  The important point to deal with is that there was never any intention by the plotters that a conspiracy would not be obvious - there was no need to conceal it, just the opposite.  The only need was to get the team exfiltrated, then the rest of the plot would divert and redirect the obvious response.

But yes, it was indeed high risk - still if you follow the scenario, for those most directly involved there was no chance.  It either worked or their exile would be permanent and their country and their families would be forever lost to Communism and a dictatorship. That sort of motivation was more than enough to drive extreme, very high risk actions.

I have responded separately and in more detail with some thoughts on "risk" in the Dallas attack:

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/risk-in-dallas/

Edited December 11, 2020 by Larry Hancock

[Larry Hancock]

I really do need to add something else to consider when thinking about "risk".  Although its purely speculative, if the tactical team members in the Plaza were the radical Cuban patriots that I characterize in Tipping Point, they had already risked their lives on multiple occasions. 

If they had been killed in the attack in Dallas, it would have been an acceptable risk. If they had been taken prisoner, they would have had two very effective options.

If JFK were dead or insured they would have had the option of claiming to  to have been double agents working for Castro.  If JFK had escaped, they could have revealed his secret dialog with Castro - which would have caused a Congressional inquiry .  That would have blown away the back channel negotiations and blown that apart as well as severely damaging him politically. In any of those contingencies, for a patriot willing to die for the cause, there was really no risk at all in terms of accomplishing their objective.

While that thinking is pure speculation it would be perfectly consistent with earlier actions, including the attempt to damage the Kennedy Administration via the TILT mission. 

[Matt Allison]

I tend to think serious discussions about assassination happened as soon as the Bay of Pigs was over; the people that were immediately apoplectic then, were still just as angry in the Fall of 1963.

Also, what if it had continued to rain that day and the bubbletop stayed on? Was there a backup plan in place at the Trade Mart? Is there evidence for the claim that Hargraves had explosives just past the Triple Underpass?

I don't see how Dallas could be the only plot afoot. There had to be a general effort of creating environments that would be conducive to assassination; "putting all their eggs in one basket" as it were, would be way riskier, IMO. If the idea in Dallas was to give the appearance of a malcontent shooting at the President while someone with a real gun and better aim took advantage of the situation, the Chicago plot seems incredibly close to that concept.

 

 

[Larry Hancock]

Matt, I think if you read Tipping Point closely I cover exactly what you posted - yes the hate and the talk did begin after the Bay of Pigs and continue after the missile crisis.  The first concrete attempt might well have been at the Orange Bowl ceremony in Miami. 

Now grand conspiracy folks might want all those to be connected, I don't think so nor do I think Chicago was a sophisticated plot - I've blogged over and over on that and cover it in Tipping Point again but I know I'm not likely to change anyone's minds on that - there are really three different and independent aspects to Chicago and they have to be considered independently to avoid them becoming entangled. 

On the other had I get very specific about people who had made threats against JFK who going to Chicago and name names and the major group/clique where that was happening. There is no doubt in my mind that they some of them wanted JFK dead and for that matter that some of them were involved in the Dallas plot in one fashion or another.

What I've written in Tipping Point is how the very specific plot for Dallas evolved, when, who, and more on how in Segment 5.  As to the Dallas attack, there are indications of a couple of back up plans but its all anecdotal.  Heck, if we can't be definitive about exactly what happened in the plaza its hard to do much more than speculate. Of course Hargraves did say his bomb just wasn't needed and there were cars parked on the Stemmons access ramp and the off ramp at Parkland...not to mention the stalled pick up on Elm Street (maybe innocent, maybe not, maybe with a bomb in the driver didn't even know about).

In any event, I have no intention of trying to force the Dallas plot scenario in Tipping Point on anyone, what you see is what you get; but my choice was to focus on the attack that unfortunately worked rather than go off on tangents (I did enough of that in SWHT). 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Larry Hancock

[Matt Allison]

I'm enjoying Tipping Point very much, Larry, as I always do with your work

I enjoy discussing various scenarios, as I think much can be learned by eliminating what is unlikely or illogical; especially in a case like this where our available evidence is more limited in some areas than we would like.

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Matt, much appreciated...and of course there are many, many scenarios - Jim Marrs did one of the best jobs in highlighting alternative scenarios in Crossfire.  There are also individuals of interest that I don't focus on in Tipping Point simply because they were either not directly relevant to the Dallas plot (in my view) or the body of information on them was not the equal of the names I do introduce.

What I am doing with some of those people and tangents is blogging on them individually, giving my reasons for not including them, but also as much information as I've found relevant. So Tipping Point is becoming interwoven with those blog posts. I will likely do the same with some of the points brought up here - Eddy made a good one about "risk" and I expect to blog abut that sometime in the next few days.

I can do the same with other points brought up here....I'm not sure I can encapsulate "the only plot afoot" point you brought up in the last post in a blog post but I'll probably give that a try. 

So basically I would encourage anyone reading Tipping Point to either bring up those sorts of thoughts (that occur as you read) here or email or message them to me and I'll respond in one form or the other, possibly with a blog post if that seems feasible.

 

[Matt Allison]

On 12/1/2020 at 7:52 AM, Larry Hancock said:

The single thing he would not discuss was this item. Even when I provided him with a document confirming Patterson's remarks he simply refused to comment. 

It looks like in December of 1975 during Church Committee questioning, Hosty claims that what he was referring to was Oswald writing the Soviet Embassy and his contact with Kostikov. I don't find his explanation convincing at all, and it is incredibly disturbing if he is lying under oath about this.

 

[Larry Hancock]

Well it would be a stretch to call a foreign embassy staffer in Mexico City (or an entire embassy in New York) a "subversive" (pretty sure the Patterson material talks about subversives rather than foreign agents), especially coming from someone who performed counter intelligence activities as Hosty did.  So that usage is something to check. Good find Matt, I actually don't recall seeing that before - and certainly Hosty did not give me that answer (or any answer) when I asked him about it directly.

But more to the point, my recollection is that Hosty specifically referenced a contact in his remarks which would have occurred a week to two weeks before the assassination.  That would not fit this explanation...I also think he said he had been "observed" in contact with the subversives which would raise another issue. 

It would be interesting to check the timeline and see exactly when Hosty would have received an Oswald file which referred either to the contact in Mexico City (specifically to Kostikov) or the mail intercept. 

This certainly deserves some further checking,  given the destruction of the note to the FBI, the destruction of a page in Oswald's notebook and a substitution, I would tend to think this was more diversion - simply another "misunderstanding".  I certainly don't think there was a follow up to share information of any nature with the Secret Service, which Hosty would indicate surely would happen. If the FBI really did feel those two contacts were of real consequence, it should have been a definite national security lead which deserved an investigation of Soviet conspiracy with Oswald.

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Larry Hancock

[Larry Hancock]

Well I had written some of the relevant chronology in SWHT so after a quick scan I find the following:

Patterson quotes Hosty as saying Oswald had contacted two "known subversives about two weeks before the assassination".  

Hosty also remarked to DPD Officer Jack Revill stating that Oswald was a "known Communist" and had been under observation. When chided for not sharing information he reminded Revill that it was FBI policy not to share "information pertaining to espionage". 

As far as timing goes, Hosty was first informed about Oswald visiting the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City on Oct. 18 (that came from INS, no mention of Kostikov).  

The FBI Director was informed of an Oswald letter to the Soviet Embassy in New  York on November 19....so far I find no indication Hosty was copied on anything about that at that nor earlier, maybe I'm missing it.  However both dates would be pretty inconsistent with Hosty's remarks to the HSCA.  He pulls appears to pull both incidents  together in his remarks to the HSCA but if you look closely he actually seems to be saying he only learned of the New York letter after the assassination.

Based on what I see so far Hosty is citing Oswald's visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September, which Hosty learned about on October 8, as an explanation for what Patterson described as Hosty saying that  the FBI observing Oswald with "subversives" within the two weeks of November immediately prior to the assassination.  Not a good fit....

[Matt Allison]

Yes, I think that's why your questioning of him and his response is very pertinent, Larry. I don't know if you have a transcript or audio of your conversation with him, but it seems to me to be important.

[Larry Hancock]

Hosty had presented at Lancer and Debra had spoken to him prior to that on multiple occasions and he was friendly enough. He said some rather dramatic things in his presentation, which should be on the conference DVD - mostly in regard to his friends on the Bureau in Mexico City telling him they had Oswald under field surveillance there, had photos with him in meetings outside the embassy with Soviet agents.  I think Hosty also claimed that actually a Cuban Visa was mailed to Oswald and was recovered - we were very interested in all those things and I spoke to him afterwards and he affirmed them. Now that I think about it he was really continuing to position a Soviet conspiracy with Oswald in his remarks.

I passed him a hard copy of the Patterson document while he was at the conference, saying I wanted to talk to him about it.  We had at least a couple of telephone calls afterwards but at the time I was trying to get more details and affirmation on the sensational things he had said and while I brought up the document he just shifted to conversation back to what he had been talking about and I never really got him to engage on it.  It was not my top priority at the time since the other things were seemingly new information (we had known about Patterson and Revill for ages) and I wasn't pushing him on it.  Of course the new things he mentioned never solidified and remain pretty dubious at this point in time.

I'm sort of surprised he didn't just take the time to kick back the Patterson remark to Kostikov like he did with the HSCA but he just simply ducked it...and I'm sure I had not seen the HSCA document you posted above or I would have brought that up.  Seems like many years ago now....and it was...

 

[Ron Bulman]

Finally got started beyond the introduction.  Tip of the iceberg it seems.

Sturgis flies 3 missions before success dropping supplies to Castro in 1958?

Tony Sforza was both mob and CIA?

McWillie was close to Ruby in Dallas before he went to Cuba to work for Lansky, often traveling with Ruby?

McWillie verified he visited Trafficante in prison in Havana, With Ruby . . .

Boom.