Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tipping Point now on Amazon


Recommended Posts

Thanks Matt, that's great to hear!  Let me try a brief point by point on your questions.

1.  Basically the relationship between the CIA and DRE was bipolar - in terms of propaganda SAS thought they were doing good work and had the best "reach" of any exile group; in therms of intelligence collections they also still had the best links on island inside Cuba. From that perspective they were valuable.  On the other hand, their military wing had become increasingly frustrated, bitter and openly dismissive (if not outright hostile) towards the Agency and the administration. Its military people had been negative towards CIA operations ever since the failures to supply and support its on island groups even before the Bay of Pigs.  That disconnect simply got increasingly worse after the missile crisis and with the new administration crackdown on missions. That's when its military leaders like Blanco, Salvat and Carlos Hernandez really began to go off to pursue their own missions. At the same time WAVE continued to straddle the fence, even using some of those same individuals on missions in 1963.  Given its track record, the level of hubris at Miami Station was pretty amazing.

2. Martino said that he was a courier, and I suspect that meant primarily to folks operating in Dallas - we know Vidal was there during that period, so was Salvat.  My guess would be that his contact with Ruby would have been nothing more than carrying some coded message that would set up contact with other people - Martino had been part of the Havana scene and was identifiable, but it would have been more like a message just to contact someone else to kick start the process of bringing in Ruby.  Martino would not have been the main contact with him after that point.

3. Yes, Helms response to Howard is available in a couple of places, in the form of memos he wrote.  I should have footnoted that, I would start looking at the great articles on the outreach in at the National Security Archives, they have an extensive sections with documents on the back-channel approach. Its in more than one place but this would be a start:  https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba/2018-04-20/cuba-us-intimate-diplomacy

4. A political visit to Texas had been under discussion since spring, actual planning would have had to begin at the end of summer but I don't think the actual city by city event schedule was available even at the time of the Sept announcement of the "Texas trip"

5. My sense of things is that alternative patsies may have been discussed at times as options were being tossed around but that once it was clear that Oswald would end up in Dallas (ie. with a new baby having arrived) at the time of the President's appearance there, then  Oswald was it for the conspiracy.  Oswald's Cuban/Castro image had been so well established with the media in New Orleans that was an "in your face" link while other mysterious Cuban agents would have been a much harder story to sell.  The content on Oswald was already available, for that matter he was already being used in propaganda. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

As is often the case, I'm behind the curve here on the forum when it comes to reading new books.

BUT, I just finished reading Tipping Point, and had a number of questions.

The book is terrific, and I learned a lot about the anti-Castro Cubans and their CIA associates.  The book certainly makes a compelling case for their direct role in the assassination op.

One of the most compelling bits of evidence unearthed was John Martino's foreknowledge of the impending assassination-- even to the extent that he kept his son home from school on 11/22/63, instructing him to keep his eye on the television news.

My questions are mainly about how the mechanics of the assassination plot outlined in Tipping Point relate to evidence of a higher level CIA role in the handling of Oswald, Dealey Plaza "security," and the scrubbing of evidence (e.g., the limo, JFK's corpse, etc.)

1)  For example, didn't apparent CIA asset Ruth Paine arrange for Oswald's employment at the TSBD in October of 1963?

If so, isn't the implication that Oswald's role in the assassination op was being handled by the CIA at a level other than JMWave and the Cuban assassins?

And why did Oswald try to call a handler/cut out in Raleigh, N.C. after his arrest?

2)  Does CIA asset Earl Cabell's involvement in the motorcade route also imply higher level CIA management of the op?

3)  Who had the authority to order the scrubbing and removal of the limo?  The confiscation of JFK's corpse?

      Doesn't that also imply a higher level of CIA management than the JMWave-affiliated Cuban assassin team?

4)  The Tipping Point material on Hal Hendrix and the post-assassination JMWave Oswald propaganda was informative.

      But what about C.D. Jackson's purchase of the Zapruder film?  Doesn't the handling of the Zapruder film (and shredded story boards described in Tipping Point) also point to higher level CIA management of the op?

 

     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'll give as frank an answer as I can on those questions (some of which are dealt with in much more detail in SWHT so I can only reference that) - acknowledging up front that parts of the following will be both contrarian and unsatisfactory...but its still my best assessment:

1)  For example, didn't apparent CIA asset Ruth Paine arrange for Oswald's employment at the TSBD in October of 1963?

.....Certainly that worked out nicely for the conspiracy, the question is whether it was organized in advance or taken advantage of in the tactical planning that actually began in October.  As Martino noted,  people did go to Dallas in the weeks prior and the final attack plans were only made then.  What we do have, and what the FBI really did work hard at submerging in their investigative reports, are a series of apparent Oswald job inquiries on Main street and at other locations in the downtown area, all of which occurred before he got the TSBD job. Putting Oswald downtown on the route and later planting the rifle in reasonable place as part of the attack was not ideal but certainly might have been an early option.  We also have to consider that Oswald continued to apply for jobs beyond the TSBD even after he was employed...that's covered in SWHT.  And for that matter there is good reason to suspect some sort of inside contact with one or more employees at the TSBD, possibly though Ruby.  So was the job there mandatory to the attack, probably not, was it really convenient, you bet, who orchestrated it - still an open question for me including how and why the word about the job got to the Paine household, which I suspect was through Frazier. 

If so, isn't the implication that Oswald's role in the assassination op was being handled by the CIA at a level other than JMWave and the Cuban assassins?

......No, normally its expected that the tactical/field team make all the arrangements for setting up the attack, including any diversions, planting of fake evidence and setting up patsy's.  That is just standard trade-craft and mandatory for deniability in any case, regardless of how how up an operation originated.

And why did Oswald try to call a handler/cut out in Raleigh, N.C. after his arrest?

......That one has been debated a great many times, even as to whether or not that call was ever really made.  I have not seen it proved to my satisfaction yet.

2)  Does CIA asset Earl Cabell's involvement in the motorcade route also imply higher level CIA management of the op?

......I've seen proof that Cabell was cleared  for security purposes, could  you  provide something to clarify what he did to consider him an "asset" in an operational sense; its pretty much SOP to run clearances on any family who are related to someone in his brothers position.  Also, could you specify his role in the motorcade - which went down the same standard Main street route virtually all Dallas parades did?

3)  Who had the authority to order the scrubbing and removal of the limo?  The confiscation of JFK's corpse?

......we could discuss that sort of thing all day long and probably not reach any agreement - in any case, as I present in SWHT I consider it part of the damage control and conspiracy - which really was not at all the focus of Tipping Point.

      Doesn't that also imply a higher level of CIA management than the JMWave-affiliated Cuban assassin team?

........some aspects of it do,  primarily what the Secret Service and FBI did with the evidence and what happened at Bethesda,  as per above, but I differentiate that from the conspiracy to kill the President....and long ago gave up trying to convince anyone of that.  I just present my case for my view in SWHT and leave it at that.

4)  The Tipping Point material on Hal Hendrix and the post-assassination JMWave Oswald propaganda was informative.

      But what about C.D. Jackson's purchase of the Zapruder film?  Doesn't the handling of the Zapruder film (and shredded story boards described in Tipping Point) also point to higher level CIA management of the op?

......which takes us back to damage control, cover up and SWHT......I can only add that of  you do tie the two together in one giant conspiracy you have a huge bifurcation between the attack which was carried out very effectively(unfortunately) and the damage control / cover up which was obviously iterative over time with many, many redos and loose ends (including  evidentiary loose ends) all over the place.  If some central authority planned and managed that they  would be the biggest bunglers in history.  To really answer your question - Yes they do point to management of a cover up but one that I feel directly involved LBJ playing lead, not just the CIA. Again, reasons for that and a pretty unique perspective on how and why are in SWHT.

To really deal with your questions SWHT, NEXUS and Tipping Point together address the overall story of the conspiracy, the attack, and what happened afterward, the best I can tell it.  But I certainly don't believe it will answer all your questions, it certainly has not answered all mine.

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback, Larry.  It sounds like I need to read Someone Would Have Talked.

I'm a latecomer to the JFKA research literature and, as I've read various books-- good and bad-- I've tended to formulate paradigms/theories then look for evidence that confirms my paradigms.  🤥

The Allen Dulles/Ruth Paine nexus reached out and grabbed me at some point, along with the evidence that Dulles aggressively pitched the "Lone Nut" narrative up front to the Warren Commission.

And, as you pointed out at the end of Tipping Point, Dulles and Angleton may have been involved on some level with the JMWave assassination plot.

After all, the "Bay of Pigs thing" led directly to the official demise of Allen Dulles.

As for "Mr. George Bush of the CIA," have you and David Boylan ever found any JMWave files or cryptonyms linked to GHWB or Zapata Offshore and the anti-Castro Cubans?

I'm still wondering about the evidence that GHWB was in Dallas on 11/22/63, and was de-briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 about the aborted FBI investigation of JFK's murder.

Regarding Bush and the Cubans, I think it was Russ Baker, in Family of Secrets, who mentioned that one of the transport ships involved in the Bay of Pigs attack was named The Barbara.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely having done so many books that deal with the context of many of the programs and individuals related to the assassination,  it becomes difficult to me too --  sometimes I know I'm being redundant for readers of the other works and at the same time I know I'm not saying enough for those who have not read them.  The only recourse I've found is to use a relatively immense number of end notes and to put a lot of copy into some of them that is relevant but diverts from the text in certain places.  

If you do get SWHT be sue to get the 2010 version which really has the damage control/cover up analysis in it, much of it based on work of the ARRB which had not been available at the time of the earlier edition.

Also I need to say there was a whole lot going on around Lee Oswald from Japan on that has to do with various elements of the intelligence community and that includes ONI,  CIA (in several sections including later its domestic operations division) and the FBI.   And absolutely all of those groups actively covered up knowledge and operational use of Oswald,  but I would say always in line with his own personality and agendas and in many instances without his personal knowledge (the best dangle is always an unknowing dangle, not under any sort of positive control but simply "nudged").  I'm aware of a broad Oswald story, its just not the one I've chosen to immerse myself in or write about.

As far as the Bush angle goes, first off their are documents showing contact with the CIA but contact in what I would call the "corporate model",  in other words very low key but high level meetings along the lines of the

CIA gaining to his oil business as a cover, including properties and and assets on Caribbean islands - for use in deniable operations.  Of course he like any other patriotic American would agree - in return there were other meetings where he gets provided with introductions and business leads, commercial intelligence that rewards his patriotism, basically quid pro quo.  I've seen the documents, David might put his hands on them now but they are years in the past for me.

What I can say is that we have documents that detail the full logistics  of the Bay of Pigs including the acquisition of all the ships involved and I have written about that at length....in yet another book,  In Denial, which is a broad story of deniable action but what I do feel is the most current and in depth study of the Cuba Project and both Eisenhower and JFK's role in it all the way up to the Bay of Pigs.   And no, the boats didn't come from Bush nor were they named by him. They came from a Cuban shipping magnate and they and their rather unwilling crews were sequestered and taken over by the CIA and then sent off to war....in what was one of the fundamental errors that doomed the landings.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well I'll give as frank an answer as I can on those questions (some of which are dealt with in much more detail in SWHT so I can only reference that) - acknowledging up front that parts of the following will be both contrarian and unsatisfactory...but its still my best assessment:

1)  For example, didn't apparent CIA asset Ruth Paine arrange for Oswald's employment at the TSBD in October of 1963?

.....Certainly that worked out nicely for the conspiracy, the question is whether it was organized in advance or taken advantage of in the tactical planning that actually began in October.  As Martino noted,  people did go to Dallas in the weeks prior and the final attack plans were only made then.  What we do have, and what the FBI really did work hard at submerging in their investigative reports, are a series of apparent Oswald job inquiries on Main street and at other locations in the downtown area, all of which occurred before he got the TSBD job. Putting Oswald downtown on the route and later planting the rifle in reasonable place as part of the attack was not ideal but certainly might have been an early option.  We also have to consider that Oswald continued to apply for jobs beyond the TSBD even after he was employed...that's covered in SWHT.  And for that matter there is good reason to suspect some sort of inside contact with one or more employees at the TSBD, possibly though Ruby.  So was the job there mandatory to the attack, probably not, was it really convenient, you bet, who orchestrated it - still an open question for me including how and why the word about the job got to the Paine household, which I suspect was through Frazier. 

If so, isn't the implication that Oswald's role in the assassination op was being handled by the CIA at a level other than JMWave and the Cuban assassins?

......No, normally its expected that the tactical/field team make all the arrangements for setting up the attack, including any diversions, planting of fake evidence and setting up patsy's.  That is just standard trade-craft and mandatory for deniability in any case, regardless of how how up an operation originated.

And why did Oswald try to call a handler/cut out in Raleigh, N.C. after his arrest?

......That one has been debated a great many times, even as to whether or not that call was ever really made.  I have not seen it proved to my satisfaction yet.

2)  Does CIA asset Earl Cabell's involvement in the motorcade route also imply higher level CIA management of the op?

......I've seen proof that Cabell was cleared  for security purposes, could  you  provide something to clarify what he did to consider him an "asset" in an operational sense; its pretty much SOP to run clearances on any family who are related to someone in his brothers position.  Also, could you specify his role in the motorcade - which went down the same standard Main street route virtually all Dallas parades did?

3)  Who had the authority to order the scrubbing and removal of the limo?  The confiscation of JFK's corpse?

......we could discuss that sort of thing all day long and probably not reach any agreement - in any case, as I present in SWHT I consider it part of the damage control and conspiracy - which really was not at all the focus of Tipping Point.

      Doesn't that also imply a higher level of CIA management than the JMWave-affiliated Cuban assassin team?

........some aspects of it do,  primarily what the Secret Service and FBI did with the evidence and what happened at Bethesda,  as per above, but I differentiate that from the conspiracy to kill the President....and long ago gave up trying to convince anyone of that.  I just present my case for my view in SWHT and leave it at that.

4)  The Tipping Point material on Hal Hendrix and the post-assassination JMWave Oswald propaganda was informative.

      But what about C.D. Jackson's purchase of the Zapruder film?  Doesn't the handling of the Zapruder film (and shredded story boards described in Tipping Point) also point to higher level CIA management of the op?

......which takes us back to damage control, cover up and SWHT......I can only add that of  you do tie the two together in one giant conspiracy you have a huge bifurcation between the attack which was carried out very effectively(unfortunately) and the damage control / cover up which was obviously iterative over time with many, many redos and loose ends (including  evidentiary loose ends) all over the place.  If some central authority planned and managed that they  would be the biggest bunglers in history.  To really answer your question - Yes they do point to management of a cover up but one that I feel directly involved LBJ playing lead, not just the CIA. Again, reasons for that and a pretty unique perspective on how and why are in SWHT.

To really deal with your questions SWHT, NEXUS and Tipping Point together address the overall story of the conspiracy, the attack, and what happened afterward, the best I can tell it.  But I certainly don't believe it will answer all your questions, it certainly has not answered all mine.

 

Well, my two cents are Larry Hancock is right on this, there was the small-op JFKA and then the necessarily larger-scale post-JFKA cover-up, they were run by two unrelated sets of people. 

John Newman (at least before) has said the "World War III" virus was planted in LHO, who was then somehow planted into the JFKA, to all but necessitate the ensuing post-JFKA cover-up. 

But I go back to my premise: Pre-event, adding dozens and dozens of witting participants with pre-event knowledge....well, strikes me as a plan that an intel agency would not come up with. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But I go back to my premise: Pre-event, adding dozens and dozens of witting participants with pre-event knowledge....well, strikes me as a plan that an intel agency would not come up with. 

I think It’s somewhere in the middle, Ben. It doesn’t have to be as small as 5 or 6 people but, won’t be dozens and dozens. Realistically, you need people who are very pro removing JFK, who have something to gain by his removal, and who have everything to lose by speaking out. Those things ensure silence, all concerned know the cost of  doing otherwise.

For sure very few knew the exact details, it’s not something most people would want to know the details of, as it’s a burden. A bit like Prouty referencing military generals who preferred not to know where the CIA were using loaned weapons or hardware. People just want to look the other way and conform to authority. The structuring of the JFKA would be done in a way that compartmentalises everything, with individuals only knowing their role and not roles of others. You would leave no trail and should anyone want to whistleblow, their story would seem less than complete, they wouldn’t have a story, just a small piece of one. Maybe Oswald was lured into his patsy role using such compartmentalisation?! He could have been hanging out and surveilling Ferry and co, as if they were the organisers of the coming hit, he was informing on them, while being manipulated into his role. At the same time a serious team was working on the JFKA with the CIA or military. People like using Ocrams Razor but, this may be far more Machiavellian. The government had plenty of practice with assassinations and regime changes, always came out of them as something other than the suspects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think It’s somewhere in the middle, Ben. It doesn’t have to be as small as 5 or 6 people but, won’t be dozens and dozens. Realistically, you need people who are very pro removing JFK, who have something to gain by his removal, and who have everything to lose by speaking out. Those things ensure silence, all concerned know the cost of  doing otherwise.

For sure very few knew the exact details, it’s not something most people would want to know the details of, as it’s a burden. A bit like Prouty referencing military generals who preferred not to know where the CIA were using loaned weapons or hardware. People just want to look the other way and conform to authority. The structuring of the JFKA would be done in a way that compartmentalises everything, with individuals only knowing their role and not roles of others. You would leave no trail and should anyone want to whistleblow, their story would seem less than complete, they wouldn’t have a story, just a small piece of one. Maybe Oswald was lured into his patsy role using such compartmentalisation?! He could have been hanging out and surveilling Ferry and co, as if they were the organisers of the coming hit, he was informing on them, while being manipulated into his role. At the same time a serious team was working on the JFKA with the CIA or military. People like using Ocrams Razor but, this may be far more Machiavellian. The government had plenty of practice with assassinations and regime changes, always came out of them as something other than the suspects. 

Chris B-

My take is nobody in their right mind would plan a JFKA with anything other than very, very close associates, and then as few as possible. 

There is always the possibility that people were not in their "right mind" due to stress and the ideological fever of the times. In 1962-3, otherwise sane people were advocating a nuclear first strike on Russia. In such an atmosphere, perhaps risks were taken, and bungles made. It is a matter of historical record that Cubans took huge risks, even undertook suicide-type missions, to fight Castro. 

There is also the possibility the true JFKA assassins were concerned about being caught, but more concerned about completing the mission.

Larry Hancock posits the true assassins did not hide multiple gunshots in rapid succession, or that shots came from different directions. 

If true, that suggest the true assassins were ready for a massive manhunt afterwards. But somehow LHO was planted into the JFKA...and you know the rest of the story.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Strangely having done so many books that deal with the context of many of the programs and individuals related to the assassination,  it becomes difficult to me too --  sometimes I know I'm being redundant for readers of the other works and at the same time I know I'm not saying enough for those who have not read them.  The only recourse I've found is to use a relatively immense number of end notes and to put a lot of copy into some of them that is relevant but diverts from the text in certain places.  

If you do get SWHT be sue to get the 2010 version which really has the damage control/cover up analysis in it, much of it based on work of the ARRB which had not been available at the time of the earlier edition.

Also I need to say there was a whole lot going on around Lee Oswald from Japan on that has to do with various elements of the intelligence community and that includes ONI,  CIA (in several sections including later its domestic operations division) and the FBI.   And absolutely all of those groups actively covered up knowledge and operational use of Oswald,  but I would say always in line with his own personality and agendas and in many instances without his personal knowledge (the best dangle is always an unknowing dangle, not under any sort of positive control but simply "nudged").  I'm aware of a broad Oswald story, its just not the one I've chosen to immerse myself in or write about.

As far as the Bush angle goes, first off their are documents showing contact with the CIA but contact in what I would call the "corporate model",  in other words very low key but high level meetings along the lines of the

CIA gaining to his oil business as a cover, including properties and and assets on Caribbean islands - for use in deniable operations.  Of course he like any other patriotic American would agree - in return there were other meetings where he gets provided with introductions and business leads, commercial intelligence that rewards his patriotism, basically quid pro quo.  I've seen the documents, David might put his hands on them now but they are years in the past for me.

What I can say is that we have documents that detail the full logistics  of the Bay of Pigs including the acquisition of all the ships involved and I have written about that at length....in yet another book,  In Denial, which is a broad story of deniable action but what I do feel is the most current and in depth study of the Cuba Project and both Eisenhower and JFK's role in it all the way up to the Bay of Pigs.   And no, the boats didn't come from Bush nor were they named by him. They came from a Cuban shipping magnate and they and their rather unwilling crews were sequestered and taken over by the CIA and then sent off to war....in what was one of the fundamental errors that doomed the landings.

 

 

 

"And no the boats didn't come from Bush nor were they named by him. They came from a Cuban shipping magnate and their rather unwilling crews were sequestered and taken over by the CIA and then sent off to war...in what was one of the fundamental errors that doomed the landings".

I learn something new nearly every time I read your work or comments Larry.  This is new to me and I think important.  Not Bush boats.  But volunteered for service by the Cuban shipping magnate.  Unwilling crews sequestered by the CIA.  A fundamental error that doomed the landings.  How so?  Did they quit cooperating while the operation was in progress?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most definitely,  the ships were brought into port in New Orleans,  the crews were told the boats were going to be used as transports and loaded with ammunition, supplies etc for the landings.  Those that did not immediately volunteer to give up their jobs and go along with the plan were sequestered by the CIA for the duration - locked up.  Of course they were told the risk would be minimal...which is indeed what had been called for in the plan.

JFK himself had ordered that the landing be developed so all ships involved in the landings would be at sea out of Cuban territorial waters by daylight, under Navy protection.   In reality, that was never possible given the tanks, heavy weapons and amount of ammunition and supplies that had to be landed and the ships came under air attack at daylight.

Long story short, the ships were civilian freighters with civilian officers and crew with no combat experience, the net result was that after coming under attack and with the loss of the ammunition supply ship the others literally fled out to sea -  and when an effort was made to go transfer their loads for landing the the next night they were still being rounded up by the Navy and essentially forced back.  The boat resupply never worked.

Supporting an amphibious operation with civilian ships and crews who had never really volunteered for any military action was a major error - but even the two command ships that carried Lynch and Robertson were crewed by civilians and captained by civilians.  They were much better prepared for what was going to happen and stood strong but if they had not, or if the tow CIA officers had not decided to stay engaged, their would not even have been the minimal coordination with the Cuban forces on the beach that there was.

Its a much longer, nastier and tragic story....painful in fact.  And JFK ended up holding the bag for Bissell's failures and Bissell himself lied to all and sundry blaming it all on Kennedy - that's not speculation, we now know it for a fact.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My take is nobody in their right mind would plan a JFKA with anything other than very, very close associates, and then as few as possible. 

I see it a bit like some have depicted it, a few east coast elites smoking cigars and drinking brandy, lamenting the direction JFK was taking and their free reign of profiteering from rackets like war and oil being reduced. Someone then has a whisper of encouragement to Dulles or a military general who these elites have been benefactor to. The words are never directly spoken but, there is understanding. Then you have someone like Dulles and Angleton having a 1 on 1. Nothing is written down but, a strategy needs putting together. Just as Dulles factors in a fail safe, so it never leads back to him, Angleton does the same and so on down the ladder. That hateful group who have all of the motivation to do it, mafia, cubans or just a CIA wet work team, may even feel like they are the ones doing it but, they know one important thing, that’s that someone from above has given the nod. Makes me think of the line in the Irishman (Scorcese) when Pesci’s character references someone at the top. Nobody really knows anything apart from the person above them and they have no proof or evidence, should things go tits up. It also reminds me of the Cohen trial (Trumps former lawyer), when he claimed Trump never ordered him to do corrupt things, he just knew that was what Trump wanted. You might also note the Joseph P Kennedy alleged advice to JFK, if you ever have to give that kind of an order, never write it down. 
 

18 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There is always the possibility that people were not in their "right mind" due to stress and the ideological fever of the times. In 1962-3, otherwise sane people were advocating a nuclear first strike on Russia. In such an atmosphere, perhaps risks were taken, and bungles made. It is a matter of historical record that Cubans took huge risks, even undertook suicide-type missions, to fight Castro. 

I agree but, I think they’re more likely to be found amongst the die hard operational types than the east coast money men. The cold war made the latter very wealthy, the former were conditioned, agitated pawns in the equation. Those pawns willing to take he risks could be ideal in this plot. Thats not to say that the person firing the kill shots was one of these, on one hand he may have been a Fort Benning or Fort Bragg type, or he could have been a Frenchman fulfilling a contract. Cubans and Mafia may have been the second lines of patsies or scenery. If we look at the MSM or even many of our own journeys to find truth in the JFKA, our path starts with Ozzie being the man its pinned on and then takes us to the mafia or cubans, the right winger types, and eventually the CIA. By the time you get to the CIA, the water is so muddied by the rest of it, it just becomes a mess that nobody dan decipher. If we take that aside and use ‘cui bono’, it skips most of the above and takes us to the money men/power elite IMHO. 
 

27 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There is also the possibility the true JFKA assassins were concerned about being caught, but more concerned about completing the mission.

And the possibility that the true assassins had two motivations, getting paid and getting away. If we veer away from it being a cuban, mafioso or cia unit with a grudge, it can just be a professional or two, with an exit strategy. We talk about the south knoll as a potential kill shot and throat shot point, whoever shot from there had an easy exit. IMHO you may be right and I may be wrong but, it may be the other way around. We’re very well trained to buy into heroes and villains, grudges, revenge etc but, the killers may just be pro’s without a care in the world for American politics. 
 

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If true, that suggest the true assassins were ready for a massive manhunt afterwards. But somehow LHO was planted into the JFKA...and you know the rest of the story.

You need a suspect, as it enables others do get away and even some stopped by cops or in custody to be released, Tippitt getting shot turns all eyes on LHO and a like pre-prepared media narrative immediately fingers LHO, a communist has done it. Case solved! Misdirection is essential if the real killers are to get away. Was one of them on the military flight suggested by James Douglas? Who knows. 
 

it’s fascinating though! I do like your thinking on a lot of this. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, I can not dispel the possibility the 1960s-era globalists had the JFKA done on their behalf. The multinationals of the era (ala Smedley Butler's insights) certainly expected US foreign, military and trade policy to hew to their interests. 

Larry Hancock's work suggests ties to Cubanos, perhaps a more nuts-and-bolts operation out of CIA-Miami. Maybe with HQ tacit acceptance. Hancock has some real names, face and places, which the big picture schemes do not.  

To me, there is a great temptation in the JFKA to: 

1. Envision a grand scheme.

2. Define the JFKA as highly sophisticated and professional. 

Both of those viewpoints may even be true. 

On the other hand, maybe the JFKA looks grand, sophisticated and professional as it was never investigated, allowing mythologies to develop. 

In no way am I exonerating the CIA or the globalist community for boondoggle-crimes done in Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. As James DiEugenio has pointed out, six million SE Asians died in the Vietnam war and aftermaths---and for what? 

Let's see what John Newman and Larry Hancock come up with. I wish I could do some basic research on the case, but I live offshore. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Certainly, I can not dispel the possibility the 1960s-era globalists had the JFKA done on their behalf. The multinationals of the era (ala Smedley Butler's insights) certainly expected US foreign, military and trade policy to hew to their interests. 

Larry Hancock's work suggests ties to Cubanos, perhaps a more nuts-and-bolts operation out of CIA-Miami. Maybe with HQ tacit acceptance. Hancock has some real names, face and places, which the big picture schemes do not.  

To me, there is a great temptation in the JFKA to: 

1. Envision a grand scheme.

2. Define the JFKA as highly sophisticated and professional. 

Both of those viewpoints may even be true. 

On the other hand, maybe the JFKA looks grand, sophisticated and professional as it was never investigated, allowing mythologies to develop. 

In no way am I exonerating the CIA or the globalist community for boondoggle-crimes done in Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. As James DiEugenio has pointed out, six million SE Asians died in the Vietnam war and aftermaths---and for what? Let's see what John Newman and Larry Hancock come up with. I wish I could do some basic research on the case, but I live offshore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


i think if we look for patterns or past form, all of these America or previously British organised or assisted coups and regime changes, they most look like ruthless unsophisticated thuggish factions carried them out. Until you look at where the dissidents funding and support came from. By design, if you’re going to get away with this stuff consistently, then your plots had better lead the masses to everyone else but you and the more logical the paper trail is, the better. In the JFKA case, the Cubanos and Mob were already on the payroll to help kill Castro, in a way that could be denied in a heartbeat by the govt agencies. So your thugs to enact regime change are already there, trained, motivated and financially supported. Ultimately, it’s Yale or ivy league guys making those decisions to do that stuff at the CIA in those days and their frat buddies making the profits from the wars JFKA wanted to stop. How many presidents or prime ministers do we have to hear mouth the words “new world order’ to upgrade it’s status from a ‘conspiracy theory’ to something bonafide. It seems that class treats the term or the term globalist as a badge of honour, not something to keep hidden now, only the press do that. 
i know some people here will think that the mentioning of this angle detracts from the JFKA research and smears it but, its the same people smearing both and there is genuine validity, 

I am also offshore, but the pace of which this pandemic and related issues are moving at, leaves me and friends little room for talking about much else, especially seeing whats happening in France and Australia. Oddly, I won’t mention the JFKA in those circles, as despite the significance I give it as a seminal moment in history, they maybe have a point that in the wider context, its just another wrong in sea of deceit and corruption and solving the present issues are a greater pressing concern than correcting this one. 

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...