The First Official "LHO Was A Loner" Narrative--Nov. 23, 1963?

[Benjamin Cole]

This information is from CIA mouthpiece Max Holland. Hold your nose and read: 

"That Oswald was not the instrument of a foreign power was an intelligence coup of the first order and of incalculable interest to an unsettled public. Late on Saturday, November 23, the State Department issued a public statement declaring that there was no evidence of a conspiracy involving a foreign country. Yet revealing the intelligence sources and methods that had helped form this determination was out of the question. Cold War-era communications intercepts were as prized as World War II feats of decryption, and the NSA’s capabilities were—and are—the most highly guarded of secrets. And because content reveals methodology, certain specifics of what had been learned were equally protected. The American public was told the truth but not the whole truth. It would not be the last time."

---30---

Does anyone know about the above State Department public statement? I cannot find the statement itself online, after a limited Google search. 

Of course, it stretches credulity that anyone anywhere would issue an official statement regarding anyone or anything about the JFKA, other than certain basic facts, on Nov. 23. A little premature, no? 

But, about 24 hours after the JFKA, the State Department had decided to issue that "LHO had no foreign connections"  statement, only slightly couched. The State Department did say there was "no evidence" of a foreign country involved in a JFKA conspiracy.

AFAIK, this was the first official public version of the "loner" angle on the JFKA. 

True? 

[Mark Ulrik]

Apparently, it was reported by the Washington Post. Mentioned in the WC testimony of Dean Rusk:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40#relPageId=377

And I think it was the "no foreign involvement" angle.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Apparently, it was reported by the Washington Post. Mentioned in the WC testimony of Dean Rusk:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40#relPageId=377

And I think it was the "no foreign involvement" angle.

Thanks MU--

Great find. 

Yes, Dean Rusk (who I met c. 1978?) is confirming and discussing the Nov. 23 State Department public statement that there was no evidence of "foreign involvement." 

It may be there is no written State Department statement, and only one made by a State Department PR officer. 

Katzenbach discusses the concerns of the State Department types in his HSCA testimony. From the striped-pants crowd, the concern was that the US looked like a banana republic, or so says Katzenbach. 

Not sure what to make of this Nov. 23 statement, and maybe it is just one of those incidental events. 

It does look like the first concern of Washington was to foreclose contemplation and discussion of conspiracies, regarding the JFKA.

Other than Dallas DA Wade, discussion of a JFKA conspiracy was quickly placed off-limits, and soon enough Wade was brought on board. 

[Karl Kinaski]

The Lone Nut narrative was preceded by the three shots narrative. Three shots were fired  according to the very first AP and UPI breaking news cables just minute's after the shooting when plenty of eyewitness had a very different perception. A lot of them heard more than three shots and in a succession incompatible to come from one gun. Later this witness were brainwashed with: You heard echos. But if there were echos how UPI and AP knew minutes after the event (and prior to the discovery of the bullet hulls) that there were only three BANGS?
The same with the CBS bulletin just minutes after the shooting: "Here is a bulletin of CBS news. In Dallas/Texas THREE SHOTS were fired at president Kennedy's motorcade at downtown Dallas ... " Again: How could CBS knew that prior to the discovery of the three (planted) shells? 

The very first witness who was brainwashed to believe the three shot fairy-tale (because all the other BANGS were "echoes") was Jean Hill. At the third floor of the Dallas county criminal courts building  in a room facing Dealey Plaza about 14h PM the following sweet witness hearing occurred by interrogator's still unidentified. 

Quote, Jean Hill, "The Last Dissenting Witness":

Quote

 "How many shots did you hear?" 
"I'd say at least four to six. Maybe more."
The man stared coldly at her (Jean Hill) for a moment. "That's ridiculous," he said. "You had to be hearing echoes, not shots. We
can account for only three bullets, and that means there were only three shots, maximum. The evidence shows they were all
fired from a window in a building overlooking the site, not from this 'grassy knoll' of yours."
"All I know is I heard more than three shots and at least one of them came from behind the fence at the top of the knoll,"
Jean said. "Why are you treating me this way, like I'm a criminal or something? Why do you keep asking me these questions
if you don't want to hear my answers?"
"Because your answers are wrong — and potentially dangerous," the interrogator said. "They'll only confuse matters, and they could cause you a lot of grief if you aren't careful." He shook his head in disgust and disbelief.

 In the case of Jean Hill the brainwashing failed. But it is interesting how this interrogators ,1 to 2h after the shooting, already knew the findings of the Warren Commission Report ... 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

The Lone Nut narrative was preceded by the three shots narrative. Three shots were fired  according to the very first AP and UPI breaking news cables just minute's after the shooting when plenty of eyewitness had a very different perception. A lot of them heard more than three shots and in a succession incompatible to come from one gun. Later this witness were brainwashed with: You heard echos. But if there were echos how UPI and AP knew minutes after the event (and prior to the discovery of the bullet hulls) that there were only three BANGS?
The same with the CBS bulletin just minutes after the shooting: "Here is a bulletin of CBS news. In Dallas/Texas THREE SHOTS were fired at president Kennedy's motorcade at downtown Dallas ... " Again: How could CBS knew that prior to the discovery of the three (planted) shells? 

The very first witness who was brainwashed to believe the three shot fairy-tale (because all the other BANGS were "echoes") was Jean Hill. At the third floor of the Dallas county criminal courts building  in a room facing Dealey Plaza about 14h PM the following sweet witness hearing occurred by interrogator's still unidentified. 

Quote, Jean Hill, "The Last Dissenting Witness":

 In the case of Jean Hill the brainwashing failed. But it is interesting how this interrogators ,1 to 2h after the shooting, already knew the findings of the Warren Commission Report ... 

Yes, all hands on deck quickly coalesced around the LN narrative and fashioned evidence through that framework.

And within 24 hours the State Department had publicly decided, perhaps on the basis of CIA intercepts, that there was no evidence of foreign involvement. 

Of course--

1. That assumed CIA-intel agency intercepts captured everything relevant. 

2. That foreign governments did not send misleading cables or phone calls, feigning innocence and surprise. 

3. That the CIA-intel community could be trusted.  

As is was, probably no foreign government would benefit from the JFKA in 1963, so the State Department was likely right. 

Whether foreigners were involved, possibly Cuban anti-Castro nationals, is another question. 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I wonder if there is a slight nuance to this: The State Department decided immediately that 'No conspiracy' was the message. That is potentialy a good holding position, and one that had been planned for any assassination of high level officials. Breathing space was then created for covert investigation. Unfortunately, the conclusion was unpalatable, so the initial cover-up story stuck?

[Benjamin Cole]

14 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I wonder if there is a slight nuance to this: The State Department decided immediately that 'No conspiracy' was the message. That is potentialy a good holding position, and one that had been planned for any assassination of high level officials. Breathing space was then created for covert investigation. Unfortunately, the conclusion was unpalatable, so the initial cover-up story stuck?

EB---

Maybe. Some have pointed out that government's initial reaction to many events is to downplay (although attacks on a nation or troops, such as Pearl Harbor, or Gulf of Tonkin, get the up-play). 

It could be that the State Department was sending a signal to Russians, "We do not plan to leverage this event to attack Russia."  A reasonable step to avoid a nuke war. 

One could posit that by Nov. 23 someone had told Dean Rusk that LHO had visited Kostikov in  Mexico City in late September. The Russians, of course, would have known that LHO, unbidden. had visited Kostikov in Mexico City, and even that the CIA had likely arranged the meeting by intentionally leaking info about LHO to the Russians. To the Russians, the LHO-Kostikov meeting could look like a manufactured event to trigger a war.  

So, the pre-mature State Department was sending a signal, "No, we do not plan to leverage the LHO-Kostikov meeting into armed conflict of some sort." 

Some might say the Nov. 23 statement shows foreign-policy elites, with foreknowledge of the JFKA (Dulles, Acheson, Harriman, Rostow) were quickly maneuvering to fabricate the LHO as LN narrative. Perhaps the CIA was their cat's paw, in this regard.  

Katzenbach's role in the formation of the WC, the selection of Dulles to the WC, and why McCone advised LBJ in 1965 that Katzenbach would be a good successor CIA director...well, interesting. 

John Newman seems to think the LHO-Kostikov meeting was arranged by the CIA, and was intended to suffocate any investigation into the JFKA --the "WWIIi virus," he calls it. 

My guess is the CIA planned to use LHO in some sort of false flag op to justify an invasion of Cuba, nd that is why they had him meet with kostikov in MC.

I do not believe Kostikov, and two associates, would have met with LHO on a Saturday unless they were somehow triggered. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 10/6/2023 at 12:27 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

This information is from CIA mouthpiece Max Holland. Hold your nose and read: 

"That Oswald was not the instrument of a foreign power was an intelligence coup of the first order and of incalculable interest to an unsettled public. Late on Saturday, November 23, the State Department issued a public statement declaring that there was no evidence of a conspiracy involving a foreign country. Yet revealing the intelligence sources and methods that had helped form this determination was out of the question. Cold War-era communications intercepts were as prized as World War II feats of decryption, and the NSA’s capabilities were—and are—the most highly guarded of secrets. And because content reveals methodology, certain specifics of what had been learned were equally protected.

There were no sources or methods that helped determine the LN conclusion.  Harriman laid down the law — no Soviet involvement — and that was the end of it.

Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock, pg 402:

<quote on >

When [Johnson] arrived at Air Force One, his first activities were to watch the national news and to begin making calls regarding taking the oath of office...There is not a single record of Johnson’s attempting to contact the National Command Center, the White House Situation Room, the Joint Chiefs, or the Secretary of Defense.  Nothing shows him asking about the location of the officer with the missile launch codes.  Despite his initial remark, Johnson did not make a single call or contact that would indicate he was worried about a Communist conspiracy or national security. </q>

From the Warren Commission testimony of LlewelynThompson, Ambassador At Large for Soviet Affairs:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. DULLES:  Did you have any conversations at any time while you were Ambassador or after you returned to the United States with any Soviet official with regard to the Oswald case?

Ambassador THOMPSON: I discussed with the Soviet Ambassador the desire of the [Warren] Commission to receive any documentation that they might have available, but I did not in any way discuss the case itself, nor did the Soviet official with whom I talked.

Mr. DULLES: You probably would, would you not, if that had taken place-of any importance? 

Ambassador THOMPSON: Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. DULLES: Your testimony is you have no knowledge of any other conversations other than that of the Secretary of State [Dean Rusk], in connection with communications to and from the Soviet Government on this case? 

Ambassador THOMPSON: That is correct.  I know of no other cases where it was discussed with Soviet officials. </q>

No one at the State Department called any Soviet official regarding the murder in Dallas. LBJ only brought up WWIII to browbeat Warren.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There were no sources or methods that helped determine the LN conclusion.  Harriman laid down the law — no Soviet involvement — and that was the end of it.

Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock, pg 402:

<quote on >

When [Johnson] arrived at Air Force One, his first activities were to watch the national news and to begin making calls regarding taking the oath of office...There is not a single record of Johnson’s attempting to contact the National Command Center, the White House Situation Room, the Joint Chiefs, or the Secretary of Defense.  Nothing shows him asking about the location of the officer with the missile launch codes.  Despite his initial remark, Johnson did not make a single call or contact that would indicate he was worried about a Communist conspiracy or national security. </q>

From the Warren Commission testimony of LlewelynThompson, Ambassador At Large for Soviet Affairs:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. DULLES:  Did you have any conversations at any time while you were Ambassador or after you returned to the United States with any Soviet official with regard to the Oswald case?

Ambassador THOMPSON: I discussed with the Soviet Ambassador the desire of the [Warren] Commission to receive any documentation that they might have available, but I did not in any way discuss the case itself, nor did the Soviet official with whom I talked.

Mr. DULLES: You probably would, would you not, if that had taken place-of any importance? 

Ambassador THOMPSON: Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. DULLES: Your testimony is you have no knowledge of any other conversations other than that of the Secretary of State [Dean Rusk], in connection with communications to and from the Soviet Government on this case? 

Ambassador THOMPSON: That is correct.  I know of no other cases where it was discussed with Soviet officials. </q>

No one at the State Department called any Soviet official regarding the murder in Dallas. LBJ only brought up WWIII to browbeat Warren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHDVsrLfZ6g

Stephen Kinzer says LBJ put Dulles on the WC to make sure the lone-assassin-nut narrative. 

More from CIA mouthpiece Holland:

The government’s leading experts on the Soviet Union doubted it (LHO as Kremlin assassin). Llewellyn Thompson, a well-regarded former ambassador to Moscow, argued that the assassination lacked the earmarks of a Soviet plot. Moscow might kill defectors but not heads of state, he insisted, and would never set such a precedent. Averell Harriman, another experienced Soviet hand, agreed that Oswald was not a likely instrument of the KGB and questioned his professed Marxism. The assassination, utterly inconsistent with recent Soviet behavior, just made no sense. What could the Soviets possibly hope to achieve through such a rash act in a nuclear-tipped world? Nor was there evidence of any effort to advance Soviet interests in the wake of the assassination. 

I like the part about Harriman questioning LHO's true beliefs. How could anyone know, especially since LHO was soon dead?