CIA Memo? When LHO "Allegedly" Visited the MC Soviet Embassy

[Michael Crane]

Hey Leslie  😉

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qfKEtzcGR7o

 

Edited.

 

Darn,I thought I found it  😞

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Leslie Sharp]

13 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I don't think that there is any question that I got Bartholomew mixed up with that George Wing guy.I've seen both guys now and I remember seeing a picture of George Wing driving the car.The picture was taken on George's left side.I certainly hope that you find it.I know that I will be looking also.

Professor Wing bought the car. He was UT Spanish and Portuguese department. He parked the Rambler on campus on a daily basis with a copy of the Life mag cover from November 22 prominent in the backseat (writing from memory so I may have the magazine wrong.)  Memory serves, Richard thought it rather odd and went in pursuit.

I spent weeks researching Wing.  I was interested because former Gov. Allan Shivers was later Regent.  Shivers was closely associated with Clint Murchison and worked on the Tidelands case. He despised Kennedy, to the degree he left the state the day the Kennedys arrived in Houston; somehow he ended up in Wash. DC for arrival of the casket Friday evening.  There's a good deal more to the story, including his role on the board of Neil Mallon's Dresser Industry, infamous for having given GHWB his start in the oil industry and in Texas Republican politics.  by chance, Shivers created the Shivercrats - Dems for Ike Eisenhower. The state slowly turned Deep Red.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

5 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Hey Leslie  😉

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qfKEtzcGR7o

 

 

Woo Hoo!!  Grab and save.

[Michael Crane]

?

https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg40914.html

 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Woo Hoo!!  Grab and save.

@Michael Crane I think this is a better / more accurate version of the original essay.

 

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/c/T3t7SdZ9cys 

[Paul Brancato]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Joseph Backes, your analyses much valued. If this is a question that has been rehashed to death before I apologize, but I wonder if you could comment:

Accepting (provisionally) the analysis on the manipulation of the Oswald information prior to the assassination and tracing it back to maybe Angleton ... 

Since that was followed by an assassination of JFK it is a very powerful temptation, which many have done, to draw the connection that insiders, e.g. Angleton, were planning the assassination of JFK in what they were doing in the runup with the Oswald information.

And yet I just wonder--what the intelligence agencies and dark ops and Joint Chiefs etc. did was false flags. There are documents on that (Northwoods). There are precedents, there are lots of examples. A false flag attempt on JFK (to be blamed on Castro) would stand out for its audacity but would fall in the spectrum of the known, one might say common and routine, m.o. of those worlds. 

There may have been some really bad actors within or without CIA or wherever who hated JFK and would kill him for real, but under no circumstances that I can see could that have been a CIA-approved secret operation, as part of the planning of secret operations that did take place involving false-flagging Castro, and as the evidence suggests, manipulation of Oswald information--to knock off a standing president of the United States. At best there could be some insider faction giving winks and nods and looking the other way, etc. as something maybe was in the works. But it would have to be highly secretive, closely-held to only a few, highly risky, never officially approved, unknown to the rest of the Agency or above a certain level, the Agency's directorship.   

(I am just using reasoning, being less versed in this than people like you and Larry Hancock.)

Unlike the anti-Castro efforts which involved false flags, assassination plots, the works. Those were business as usual. Those were signed off on right up to directorship level and with intentional deniability but it just seems to me JFK and RFK knew but did not officially know, if you get my drift, what was being done by subordinates immediately below them.

 And yet, the fact: this pre-assassination some-kind-of manipulation of Oswald information related to that trip to Mexico City, contact with Kostikov etc and etc, was followed by the assassination of JFK.

What I am getting at is everything about CIA actions prior to that point works well as a false-flag not-real-assassination intended, i.e. what would look like an assassination attempt to be pinned on Castro that failed ... angering the American public and the world and justifying whatever "in response" against Castro's regime ... (business as usual for the dirty ops types). 

I would think at least 90% of the insider professionals who knew how to do dirty ops would balk if they had any idea that it involved a real assassination of a president no matter who the president was. It is not obvious to me that even Angleton would not balk at the idea of knocking off a president, if he knew that was what was going to happen. Even if he was up to his ears in this manipulation of Oswald information in the runup.

All of this is to say it just looks--no?--like some sort of Waldron thesis of some actor--some mob actors being the obvious suspect--somehow matched a real assassination to be pinned on Oswald (via the rifle, not by advance plan to frame Oswald as the shooter)--and all--all--of the coverup activity that followed the assassination could be explicable not as agencies having knowingly killed JFK but of having knowingly been party to manipulation of Oswald information (which was to false-flag Castro, what that was about), and a false-flag attempt to "launch war on Cuba and world war III" as it would look if it were exposed. 

That is: something--an incident--but certainly not fatal to JFK--was planned and operational that could have gone big-time into escalation to invasion of Cuba, overthrow of Castro, and chess moves against the Soviet Union. But actual assassination of JFK was not part of those operational plans. 

Just asking for your opinion on this: right track or wrong track in reasoning, in your view?

Greg - I agree that the hijacking by real assassins of a plan designed to implicate Castro in an attempted assassination would would explain a lot of the coverup. Where I find this explanation lacking is that Cuba remained intact while Vietnam exploded. I honestly do not think JFK could have been convinced to pursue the policy that LBJ did in Vietnam, and that was what made planners decide to actually kill him. I thunk Vietnam was the goal. I’m not trying to say I’m certain of that, just my two cents.

[James DiEugenio]

OMG, Lamar Waldron of all people.  

Please, as I have spent countless hours on Waldron, plus showing the whole Mob did it thesis is full of holes.

I asked John Newman about this idea of a non fatal attack.

He said: "Jim, by the end of 1962, almost everyone in Washington despised Kennedy and wanted him gone."

This is why there were at least three attempts on his life in 1963, prior to Dallas (we only did two in the film.). And Chicago is so close in design to Dallas.

Kennedy was not getting out of 1963 alive, and that is a fact. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Joseph Backes]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Joseph Backes, your analyses much valued. If this is a question that has been rehashed to death before I apologize, but I wonder if you could comment:

Accepting (provisionally) the analysis on the manipulation of the Oswald information prior to the assassination and tracing it back to maybe Angleton ... 

Since that was followed by an assassination of JFK it is a very powerful temptation, which many have done, to draw the connection that insiders, e.g. Angleton, were planning the assassination of JFK in what they were doing in the runup with the Oswald information.

And yet I just wonder--what the intelligence agencies and dark ops and Joint Chiefs etc. did was false flags. There are documents on that (Northwoods). There are precedents, there are lots of examples. A false flag attempt on JFK (to be blamed on Castro) would stand out for its audacity but would fall in the spectrum of the known, one might say common and routine, m.o. of those worlds. 

There may have been some really bad actors within or without CIA or wherever who hated JFK and would kill him for real, but under no circumstances that I can see could that have been a CIA-approved secret operation, as part of the planning of secret operations that did take place involving false-flagging Castro, and as the evidence suggests, manipulation of Oswald information--to knock off a standing president of the United States. At best there could be some insider faction giving winks and nods and looking the other way, etc. as something maybe was in the works. But it would have to be highly secretive, closely-held to only a few, highly risky, never officially approved, unknown to the rest of the Agency or above a certain level, the Agency's directorship.   

(I am just using reasoning, being less versed in this than people like you and Larry Hancock.)

Unlike the anti-Castro efforts which involved false flags, assassination plots, the works. Those were business as usual. Those were signed off on right up to directorship level and with intentional deniability but it just seems to me JFK and RFK knew but did not officially know, if you get my drift, what was being done by subordinates immediately below them.

 And yet, the fact: this pre-assassination some-kind-of manipulation of Oswald information related to that trip to Mexico City, contact with Kostikov etc and etc, was followed by the assassination of JFK.

What I am getting at is everything about CIA actions prior to that point works well as a false-flag not-real-assassination intended, i.e. what would look like an assassination attempt to be pinned on Castro that failed ... angering the American public and the world and justifying whatever "in response" against Castro's regime ... (business as usual for the dirty ops types). 

I would think at least 90% of the insider professionals who knew how to do dirty ops would balk if they had any idea that it involved a real assassination of a president no matter who the president was. It is not obvious to me that even Angleton would not balk at the idea of knocking off a president, if he knew that was what was going to happen. Even if he was up to his ears in this manipulation of Oswald information in the runup.

All of this is to say it just looks--no?--like some sort of Waldron thesis of some actor--some mob actors being the obvious suspect--somehow matched a real assassination to be pinned on Oswald (via the rifle, not by advance plan to frame Oswald as the shooter)--and all--all--of the coverup activity that followed the assassination could be explicable not as agencies having knowingly killed JFK but of having knowingly been party to manipulation of Oswald information (which was to false-flag Castro, what that was about), and a false-flag attempt to "launch war on Cuba and world war III" as it would look if it were exposed. 

That is: something--an incident--but certainly not fatal to JFK--was planned and operational that could have gone big-time into escalation to invasion of Cuba, overthrow of Castro, and chess moves against the Soviet Union. But actual assassination of JFK was not part of those operational plans. 

Just asking for your opinion on this: right track or wrong track in reasoning, in your view?

I've read this several times. Each time wising it was in simple English. 

Forget all the work of John Newman, all of his books and presentations, all the documents. Isn't my analysis better? Umm, no, no it isn't. 

Forget false flag BS. Forget Lamar Waldron's nonsense. Forget the mob did it BS.

I'm so tired of people who don't read documents but do read the title of a document talking and writing about Operation Northwoods. 

Read the documents. Read John Newman's books.

BTW, all of the Castro assassination plots, ALL OF THEM, are fake.  All were controlled by the CIA. All were sabotaged. All designed to fail. Why? Because you need Castro alive after the assassination of JFK to blame the crime on Castro, so you can play the WWIII card.  JFK tried to get Castro but Castro got him first. But if people discover that it'll be WWIII. So, shut up. SHUT UP! And say, "It was Oswald."  

I don't get people who just can't believe there was any actual plot to kill JFK by the highest leaders in the highest positions of government in 1963.  Why are you here? 

[Benjamin Cole]

12 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

I've read this several times. Each time wising it was in simple English. 

Forget all the work of John Newman, all of his books and presentations, all the documents. Isn't my analysis better? Umm, no, no it isn't. 

Forget false flag BS. Forget Lamar Waldron's nonsense. Forget the mob did it BS.

I'm so tired of people who don't read documents but do read the title of a document talking and writing about Operation Northwoods. 

Read the documents. Read John Newman's books.

BTW, all of the Castro assassination plots, ALL OF THEM, are fake.  All were controlled by the CIA. All were sabotaged. All designed to fail. Why? Because you need Castro alive after the assassination of JFK to blame the crime on Castro, so you can play the WWIII card.  JFK tried to get Castro but Castro got him first. But if people discover that it'll be WWIII. So, shut up. SHUT UP! And say, "It was Oswald."  

I don't get people who just can't believe there was any actual plot to kill JFK by the highest leaders in the highest positions of government in 1963.  Why are you here? 

JB--

Good response.

But riddle me this: Why not a false flag attempted JFKA op, to be blamed on Castro...that was then piggy-backed on by a couple-three JMWAVE types...with implicit say-so and vital info on LHO from a CIA higher-up?  

If you contend "the CIA did it," I certainly won't disagree. But even foreign assassination plots were heavily, heavily compartmentalized, and mis-leading paperwork generated. 

I see nothing so wrong with thinking elements within the CIA conducted the JFKA, not the organization as a whole. 

PS I try to read docs when I have time...I admire your efforts in that direction...

 

[Joseph Backes]

But, why, why not a false flag? Wah!  

I should open a false flag ice cream store as it seems to be everyone's favorite flavor.  It would look a lot like the Monty Python Cheese Shop. 

A CIA false flag op hijacked by a rogue group of JMWAVE CIA people because that's better than thinking the CIA had anything to do with it?

 BTW, I'm not saying the CIA did it.  It was a collaborative effort involving key people in key positions in several agencies.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Joseph Backes said:

But, why, why not a false flag? Wah!  

I should open a false flag ice cream store as it seems to be everyone's favorite flavor.  It would look a lot like the Monty Python Cheese Shop. 

A CIA false flag op hijacked by a rogue group of JMWAVE CIA people because that's better than thinking the CIA had anything to do with it?

 BTW, I'm not saying the CIA did it.  It was a collaborative effort involving key people in key positions in several agencies.

 

BTW, I'm not saying the CIA did it.  It was a collaborative effort involving key people in key positions in several agencies.--JB

OK, I'll bite. What people in what agencies? I am not saying you are wrong, although my pet theory is a very small op, inside one agency only. 

What is your best outline of who perped the JFKA and how? 

[Michael Crane]

10 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Michael Crane I think this is a better / more accurate version of the original essay.

 

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/c/T3t7SdZ9cys 

I went there yesterday but only got something like this.

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Greg Doudna]

/

Edited July 3, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Gene Kelly]

22 hours ago, Joseph Backes said:

Newman picked Angleton in the updated version of "Oswald and the CIA," I believe.  

Makes sense Joe ... Angleton was close to Dulles (see the photo from Allen Dulles funeral), and also kept the false defector Nosenko under wraps. I speculate that Russia knew what happened and sent Nosenko to distance them from the setup (and the Kostikov "virus balloon"). And it was the suspect mole Bruce Solie who "cleared" Nosenko.  Lots of intrigue here.

I am also puzzled by the Marvin Gheesling/Lambert Anderson who cancelled an FBI security flash on October 9th ... after two misleading CIA cables about Mexico City.  And only days later, Oswald is hired at the TSBD.  Bill Simpich concluded that the flash was removed because CIA/FBI were using Oswald in some kind of intelligence-related operation.  He is giving the benefit of the doubt to Gheesling and Anderson.  Gheesling was punished and transferred from HQ to a field office (and as Newman points out, 33 other agents were disciplined by Hoover).  It seems the "Kostikov Virus Balloon" effectively blackmailed the FBI into cover their reputation later.  What little I've read about Gheesling tells me he wasn't complicit, but rather used ... not so sure about Anderson. 

Gene

[Leslie Sharp]

7 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I went there yesterday but only got something like this.

 

Right.

I can copy paste into a message if you you're not able to open the link I shared.

I'm surprised it's so difficult to access. There was a time when it was high on the algorithm.