Ruby's strange motivation

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Well, since you don't seem to trouble yourself with bothering to find actual evidence for what you "believe," you must resign yourself to trusting the integrity of others. Hey, if it's in a book, it must be true. That your uncritical, blithely cavalier trust stretches far enough to include CIA, a possible suspect on any reasonable person's list, explains how you can have the nerve to militate on behalf of a CIA sham, without even knowing the basis for it. Well done.

Sorry, Robert, I would not believe ANYTHING in a book by an authors whose credentials I did not trust but I do trust both Mr. Hancock and Mr. Thomas, who report the same thing (that Cubela was in contact with Kostikov). If you have any reason to think either of them a xxxx or a CIA disinformation agent, let's hear it.

And what difference would it make if I had a copy of the original CIA report? You'd just say the CIA made it up. You can make any evidence go away if you will call it fake without any basis for doing so. I mean by that standard I could claim you were Fabian Escalante posting under an assumed name.

So my challenge to you is: if you really think BOTH Thomas and Hancock are liars, state your reasons. If you think the report of a Cubela-Kostikov meeting was falsified, state your basis for believing that. If it was, to what purpose? No one used it to justify an invasion of Cuba. Instead, the CIA hid it. So you think the CIA faked a report so they could hide it? That's just NONSENSE!

Edited May 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Larry Hancock]

There are sources that report Roselli and Martino shared and apartment and even partied together. Hinkle and Turner repeat that story but there is no reference given and the timeframe doesn't fit well e.g. Roselli was frequenting Miami while Martino was in prison in Cuba. I've also had secondary sources tell me that the two were together briefly during the summer of 1963 - but we have no Roselli surveillance documents to verify that. Suffice it to say that as far as the official record goes there was no connection between the two and nothing to reveal it to the HSCA (nor the FBI) if it were true.

.....for what its worth, unless something very special drew them together the two men had no business history that would associate them other than possibly at least having met briefly in Havana in earlier years.

On your plan comment....I agree. The plan did not produce all of what many of the participants wanted. Its also very possible that those at the top really only expected to get rid of JFK (and eliminate RFK as a force). Martino was quite clear about how and when the plan blew apart - with the murder of Tippett and Oswald's capture. That prevented full implementation of a Castro frame which was designed to be extremely solid - we have no detail on exactly how that would have been accomplished, anything I have or would post on that would be pure speculation. What followed was a pale effort to continue the frame with what was in hand among various parties. On a side note per this thread, the plot never envisioned a key role for Ruby - certainly using him to eliminate Oswald was an indication of a major weakness, that of ending up with Oswald in custody. Which of course suggests Oswald was never part of a plan to sacrifice himself in an effort to frame Castro.

As to Morales and AMTRUNK, the records show that he was involved in SGA planning on that subject but they also reveal that he and Shackley both opposed much of that planning because they were personally opposed to some of the individuals (and their politics) who were to be used in AMTRUNK. Which of course demonstrates Morales's good professional judgement since we now know much of the AMTRUNK network to have been completely compromised by Castro. It took CIA about three years to fully realize that even though there were security objections throughout. Those documents are in the CIA segregated collection. However, whether he liked it or not, in Morales position he would have had to perform some tasks in support of AMTRUNK. But that would be tactical and operational planning; I think it would be wrong to consider him as being a proponent (or even a beliver) in AMTRUNK based on the documents we have available.

-- Larry

Thanks Larry for the interesting reply.

So the HSCA did not know how well-connected Martino was?  Wasn't he living with Rosselli for a time?

Re Morales, the plot described by Morales that would have "resulted in the assured ouster of Castro" certainly did not.  In fact, it resulted in the exact OPPOSITE.

Do you agree Morales was part of the planning team for AMTRUNK, by the way?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

The above interchange with Robert Charles-Dunne:

[Quoting me]: Funny, Robert, John's most recent scenario factors in Gilberto Policarpo Lopez in Dallas but assumes (without evidence) that he was a double agent working for both the CIA and Castro's intelligence.

Then perhaps you should take that up with him.  I did notice in reading John's hypothesis, however, that he identifies Policarpo as a second patsy in a plot to blame Castro for the JFK hit.  There is evidence for this, whereas the evidence for your contention that he was a conspirator is far thinner gruel, indeed.

Well, Robert, what is your evidence that Policarpo was a "second patsy"? 

And Robert's answer was:

If Policarpo was being implicated in the assassination as a Castro proxy by CIA, for which there is to date NO PROOF, that seems prima facie evidence that CIA was trying to tie an innocent man to a crime he didn't commit.  That ring any bells vis a vis CIA's treatment of a guy named Oswald?

Robert's answer seems to boil down to if a Cuban was in Dallas

PROVE THAT HE WAS!

and fled to Havana after the assassination

PROVE THAT HE DID!

, never to return to the United States

PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T!

, raising suspicions obvious to anyone, including the CIA, then he must have been a CIA set-up patsy.  But then he goes on to argue that maybe he wasn't even in Dallas anyway. 

PROVE THAT HE WAS!

What a non-sequitur.  How did the CIA persuade Policarpo to go to Dallas

PROVE THAT HE WENT!

for the assassination, and then flee to Havana? 

PROVE THAT HE DID!

Robert offers no explanation whatsoever. 

No, I continue to ask for any proof for any of your assertions, as I have done for five months, to no avail.  There comes a time when one either puts up or shuts up.  Which will it be?

Nor does John offer any proof whatsoever that Policarpo was a CIA double agent.

If Fidel had walked up to the presidential limousine, pulled a pistol, and shot JFK in the face in front of hundreds of spectators in Dealey Plaza, and was caught with the smoking gun, Robert would no doubt claim it was all a CIA frame-up.

I agree that if anti-Castro forces were framing LHO to blame it on Fidel, it would be a good plan to make it LOOK like he had escaped to Havana. 

Oh?  You mean like they tried to do with Policarpo?  Just what makes you think there's any difference between the way CIA handled the two men?  Small fly in the ointment: Oswald was captured.

Had Oswald IN FACT escaped to Cuba, however, then, my conclusion would be that he had been part of a Castro plot.  Well, that is what happened with Policarpo. 

PROVE IT!  You can't, can you?  Yet this most basic, grade school failure to stand and deliver doesn't prevent you from abusing, hectoring and condescendingly insulting any and all who don't toe your narrow, vaporous party line.  At the end of the day, sir, have you no shame?

He moved from Key West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination, about the time the assassination plans were in progress, then got a VISA to VISIT Mexico for two weeks, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination,

For God's sake, PROVE IT!

then fled to Havana never to return to the US. 

For God's sake, PROVE IT!

To any reasonable person, those activities raise obvious suspicions. 

Any reasonable person would want to see some evidence for these assertions.  How reasonable is a person who makes the assertions but refuses to provide any evidence for them?

So John has to (without a scintilla of evidence) argue he was a CIA double agent while Robert argues he was a CIA-designated patsy.

Then Robert goes on to argue that perhaps Policarpo had not been in Dallas whatsoever.  For all Robert suggests, the guy is still in Key West.  Well, Robert, I've seen his photo and let me tell you he's not here anymore.  So when do you think he moved to Havana?  What proof do you have that the documentary evidence that he arrived in Mexico on November 23, 1963 was fabricated?

Now you challenge people to discredit evidence you've never even provided, or even seen, from what one can gather?  Are you for real?

 

It's easy to deny any evidence linking Castro to the assassination by simply asserting the CIA made it up.  But somehow that does not cut it.

Not providing a single scintilla for one's CIA-authored assertions is what "does not cut it."  You're quicky sliding downhill from cranky contrarian to laughing stock.  Can you not see what your obstinate refusal to cite any evidence is doing to your already limited credibility? 

Policarpo's presence in Dallas and escape to Havana is not conclusive proof of Cuban complicity in the assassination but any reasonable person will agree it points in that direction.

Unless and until you provide actual evidence for your assertions, you're in no position to determine what a reasonable person would, should, could or might find convincing.  We're here and we're still waiting.  Go ahead, convince us!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Sorry. Duplicate post. Please see below.

Edited May 29, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

Well, since you don't seem to trouble yourself with bothering to find actual evidence for what you "believe," you must resign yourself to trusting the integrity of others.  Hey, if it's in a book, it must be true.  That your uncritical, blithely cavalier trust stretches far enough to include CIA, a possible suspect on any reasonable person's list, explains how you can have the nerve to militate on behalf of a CIA sham, without even knowing the basis for it.  Well done.

Sorry, Robert, I would not believe ANYTHING in a book by an authors whose credentials I did not trust

By that standard, if I impanel a trustworthy group of gentlemen - let's say the Chief Supreme Court Justice, a few Senators, a few members of the House of Representatives, a respected former DCI and a titan of diplomacy and industry - and have them author a book that finds Oswald, acting on his own, killed Kennedy, presumably it must be the gospel truth?  Right?  So, on what basis would you dare to contradict such highly esteemed men?  

but I do trust both Mr. Hancock and Mr. Thomas, who report the same thing (that Cubela was in contact with Kostikov).  If you have any reason to think either of them a xxxx or a CIA disinformation agent, let's hear it.

What a simplistic and disappointing fallback position you adopt when challenged.  You seem congenitally incapable of discerning between what is reported, and what is fact, as though there is no difference between the two, ever. 

I have seen a memo written by J. Edgar Hoover, alleging that Oswald made repeated trips to Cuba, but refused to reveal to FBI his purpose for such trips.  If I then write a book in which I report having seen that document, does that, ipso facto, make the contents of Hoover's memo true?  Yes, the document does exist.  Does it's very existence mean the contents are the actual, genuine, unvarnished truth?  Grade school children can distinguish the distinction.  Why can't, or won't, you?

And what difference would it make if I had a copy of the original CIA report?

For starters, it would illustrate that you've actually seen the "reports" you insist we accept as genuine, and whose contents you regard as truthful despite having never seen them.

You'd just say the CIA made it up.

No, the onus in proving provenance doesn't fall on me.  Demonstrating that the document is genuine, and that its contents are accurate, becomes your responsibility when you insist it is truthful.  But since you seem to favor militating for the acceptance of documents you've never even seen, the point is rendered moot, no?

You can make any evidence go away if you will call it fake without any basis for doing so.  I mean by that standard I could claim you were Fabian Escalante posting under an assumed name.

Well, here's a news flash for you, Tim: that is the standard you employ.  You merely cherry-pick the wildest and most provocative stuff to suit your purpose, based upon third hand reports, and then challenge others to 'disprove' the smoke and vapors you blow up our kilts on a daily basis.  The fact that much evidence, and common sense, exists to contradict each and every one of your assertions doesn't dissuade you from pursuing your CIA-scripted fantasy.  Which is your right.  Just don't insist that others blindly follow your lead.  You know what they say about the blind leading the blind.

So my challenge to you is: if you really think BOTH Thomas and Hancock are liars, state your reasons. 

What a craven, cowardly position to adopt.  If somebody disagrees with you, then others are somehow implied "liars."  Is this really the best that you can do?  Since Larry Hancock, for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect, posts here, why don't you ask him if he thinks documents must be true, just because he has seen them?  Much hilarity should ensue.

If you think the report of a Cubela-Kostikov meeting was falsified, state your basis for believing that. 

Why not provide us with such a document?  Too much effort?  Presumably...

If it was, to what purpose? 

Surely, even someone with your limited willingness to consider nettlesome little details could conjure a purpose for such a "report."  But then, that purpose might not reflect well upon those who generated the "report" should it be demonstrated false.

No one used it to justify an invasion of Cuba.  Instead, the CIA hid it.  So you think the CIA faked a report so they could hide it?  That's just NONSENSE!

You should know.  You trade in it here, daily.

Stevie Wonder wrote that "When you believe in things you don't understand, you're in trouble."  The man is blind, and even he can "see" the outcome of your current dilemma.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Stevie Wonder wrote that "When you believe in things you don't understand, you're in trouble."

Well, Robert, since you cannot get the facts of the assassination correct, it somehow does not surprise me that you cannot even get the lyrics to Stevie Wonders' #1 hit song "Superstition" (from his 1972 album "Talking Book") correct.

Here they are:

When you believe in things that you don’t understand,

Then you suffer,

Superstition ain’t the way

A great song, by the way!

But prove that Stevie Wonder wrote it!! Don't believe everything you read or hear! Could be CIA misinformation, after all!

By the way, John does not think that quoting song lyrics is an effective way to make a point. Particularly when they are quoted incorrectly, I should say.

Edited May 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote (re Gilberto Policarpo Lopez):

[Quoting me] Policarpo moved from Key West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination, about the time the assassination plans were in progress, then got a VISA to VISIT Mexico for two weeks, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination,

For God's sake, PROVE IT!

Etc etc ad nauseaum.

For God's sake, Robert!! We know the man lived in Key West from 1961 until his move to Tampa. We researched and located the apartment he lived in Key West. The House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated his travel. I have a right to assume the House Select Committee on Assassinations examined documents and reports re when he got his fourteen day visa to visit Mexico. The HSCA identified the hotel he stayed at in Mexico City, even to the HOUR when he left the hotel. I have a right to rely on the research of the HSCA. The ball is in your park to identify and PROVE any errors in its report on Policarpo.

By the way, while you are at it, please PROVE you exist. Post a copy of your birth certificate. Then post proof it is not a forgery. (An example of how lame are your objections to the Policarpo story. We have the right to assume documents are correct until proven to be forgeries.)

Edited May 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Oh? You mean like they tried to do with Policarpo? Just what makes you think there's any difference between the way CIA handled the two men? Small fly in the ointment: Oswald was captured.

Come on, Robert, if you have any evidence Policarpo was affiliated with the CIA, let's hear it. And if what you are telling us is that had Oswald not been captured, he would have fled to Cuba (as Policarpo did), then, my friend, that means that LHO was part of the conspiracy, of which the "big fish" wore fatigues, had a beard and smoked the best Cuban cigars.

Note that I resisted the temptation to query what YOU have been smokin'. Ain't I a swell fellow to exercise such restraint in the face of such provocation?

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

What a craven, cowardly position to adopt. If somebody disagrees with you, then others are somehow implied "liars." Is this really the best that you can do? Since Larry Hancock, for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect, posts here, why don't you ask him if he thinks documents must be true, just because he has seen them? Much hilarity should ensue.

Robert, I am sure most members understand that when a debater adopts an ad hominem attack it means he KNOWS he has lost on the substance. The record will indicate I have never stooped to name-calling.

First you tried to imply there might not even BE a document linking Cubela with Kostikov. Now, since I reported that it is in Larry's book, and you can hardly call Larry a xxxx, you give up that position, but you assume Larry thinks the document is a fraud (or if the document was not a fraud the report underlying it was a lie) even though, as you know, there is no such implication in Larry's book.

I repeat what good would it do to produce the actual document? Regardless of who it states could document a Kostikov/Cubela meeting, all you would do is claim the reporter of such meeting was a xxxx. If the document states the CIA secret surveillance camera had photos of Kostikov and Cubela entering the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City hand-in-hand you would simply claim no such photo ever existed.

Since both Thomas and Hancock report it, we do know this: Fitzgerald was aware (but Angleton was not) of a report of Cubela meeting with Kostikov. (You can assume it is false if you want but you have no basis to assume that.)

Now since I am more interested in resolving the assassination than those of your ilk whose only agenda seems to be to blame the CIA, I will raise a point not made in either book, but worthy of consideration: as you know, Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris on October 29, 1963 (I assume you will concede THAT). Query when did Fitzgerald first learn of Cubela's meeting with Kostikov, and did that not cause Fitzgerald any concern re Cubela's bona fides? I think that is an interesting question worth some research.

If my scenario is right, and Cubela was a dangle, then, by accepting Cubela over the objections of Shackley and Langosch, Fitzgerald propably sealed JFK's fate. Ironically, had the Kennedys not sacked Harvey, JFK may have lived.

In a previous post, Larry mentions that Morales correctly suspected that there were Castro infiltrators in the AMTRUNK operation. It is interesting that the CIA people perceived as JFK's enemies were probably the smartest in suspecting Cuban traps. The bunglers in the CIA, and I now refer specifically to Bissell (who not only bungled the BOP but also arranged the CIA's "marriage of convenience" with the MOB, and Fitzgerald, were Kennedy supporters.

In closing, I must add that if Cubela was indeed associating with the head of the KGB's assassination squad, that fact certainly suggests Cuban complicity in the assassination. Since you know concede the report exists, will you concede that UNLESS the report was false, the assassination was, more likely than not, Cuban-inspired?

Edited May 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Because I have been accused of "hijacking forums" I looked back to see how a thread re "Ruby's motivation" ended up on the Castro discussion. It started when Greg posted a comment that if all had gone as planned, Cuba would have been attacked. I.e., it was a right-wing plot to frame Castro.

In any event, in the future I shall try not to get us going down an extended Fidel scenario whenever someone says that the motive of the assassination was to blame it on Fidel and initiate an attack on Cuba. We all know that if that WAS the motive, it backfired BADLY on the plotters. Had JFK lived, Cuba would now be a democracy, probably with casinos inside huge resorts (most owned by Steve Wynne; Bobby would have sent all the mafioso to federal penitentiaries).

Edited May 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote (re Gilberto Policarpo Lopez):

[Quoting me] Policarpo moved from Key West to Tampa approximately six months before the assassination, about the time the assassination plans were in progress, then got a VISA to VISIT Mexico for two weeks, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination,

For God's sake, PROVE IT!

Etc etc ad nauseaum.

For God's sake, Robert!!  We know the man lived in Key West from 1961 until his move to Tampa.  We researched and located the apartment he lived in Key West.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated his travel.  I have a right to assume the House Select Committee on Assassinations examined documents and reports re when he got his fourteen day visa to visit Mexico. 

Feel free to assume as much as you'd like; just don't insist that others assume along with you.  Some of us insist upon actual proof, which HSCA failed to provide us then, and which you seem incapable of doing today. 

As you have admitted, HSCA got much wrong and its report was not perfect.  Presumably, had HSCA received all the data it requested from CIA, it would have reached a definitive conclusion regarding Policarpo, and either cleared him or named him as a conspirator, rather than merely note his actions were troubling.

I find it more than passing strange, however, that while HSCA came to no firm conclusion about Policarpo because it lacked the evidence to do so, you use its lukewarm language to insist that this is proof of Castro's perfidy, and demand that we assume the same along with you.  This is neither scholarly, nor good investigative methodology, nor legal etiquette.

The HSCA identified the hotel he stayed at in Mexico City, even to the HOUR when he left the hotel.

Which was provided to HSCA by...?  And it was so convincing that HSCA concluded.... what?  It raised troubling questions?  Indeed.

I have a right to rely on the research of the HSCA. 

Then you must conclude as it did: the Policarpo episode raised troubling questions that it didn't resolve.  That you have resolved these questions to your satisfaction is clear.  What you haven't provided is evidence that convinces anyone else.  That is not HSCA's fault, for unlike yourself, it did not jump to spectacular but unsubstantiated conclusions about Policarpo in the absense of evidence.

The ball is in your park to identify and PROVE any errors in its report on Policarpo.

Since HSCA reached no firm conclusions about Policarpo, unlike yourself, what's to prove?  You make the claims; you provide the proof.  That's the way it works, whether in debate, Congress or the courtroom.

By the way, while you are at it, please PROVE you exist.  Post a copy of your birth certificate.  Then post proof it is not a forgery.  (An example of how lame are your objections to the Policarpo story.  We have the right to assume documents are correct until proven to be forgeries.)

Mock as much as you like, Tim; it doesn't alter the fact that you argue on behalf of a hypothesis using "evidence" you clearly have never seen.  Instead, you assume too much, based upon too little.  Just don't assume that cuts it for the rest of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

Oh?  You mean like they tried to do with Policarpo?  Just what makes you think there's any difference between the way CIA handled the two men?  Small fly in the ointment: Oswald was captured.

Come on, Robert, if you have any evidence Policarpo was affiliated with the CIA, let's hear it. 

I don't, and never suggested that Policarpo was "affiliated with CIA."  You seem to be confusing John Simkin's comments with my own. 

What I referred to was the CIA-generated documents about both Oswald and Policarpo, which imply that both men were in some way acting for Castro, or at least sympathetic to his cause.  We know that CIA got so much wrong about Oswald [his name, his photo, his ability to speak Russian, etc.], that it led to suspicions Oswald wasn't the man CIA half-assedly "watched" in Mexico City.  Despite this track record for incredibly shoddy and incorrect reportage, you insist that we believe whatever CIA says about Policarpo must be true.  "Assume" all you like.  But understand why others might disagree.

And if what you are telling us is that had Oswald not been captured, he would have fled to Cuba

Again, this is your invention, as I've never said any such thing.  Clearly, we were asked to accept that Oswald seemed to be making travel plans to Cuba and the USSR, which after the assassination made it appear that he had a 'getaway' plan.  But since Cuba refused to give him a visa [rather odd behaviour for Castro's minions, given that you allege Oswald was a Castro proxy], just how -pray tell - was Oswald to make this great escape? 

(as Policarpo did),

Which you accept as fact, on CIA's say-so, whereas HSCA - the basis for your claim - did not.  How can you cite HSCA as the source for your "proof" when it saw that "proof" [which you have not] and refrained from reaching your conclusion?  Care to explain this little discrepancy?

then, my friend, that means that LHO was part of the conspiracy, of which the "big fish" wore fatigues, had a beard and smoked the best Cuban cigars.

Note that I resisted the temptation to query what YOU have been smokin'. 

Almost....

Ain't I a swell fellow to exercise such restraint in the face of such provocation?

Now the repeated request for evidence is considered "provocation?"  What does one consider the consistent abject failure to oblige those repeated requests?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

What a craven, cowardly position to adopt.  If somebody disagrees with you, then others are somehow implied "liars."  Is this really the best that you can do?  Since Larry Hancock, for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect, posts here, why don't you ask him if he thinks documents must be true, just because he has seen them?  Much hilarity should ensue.

Robert, I am sure most members understand that when a debater adopts an ad hominem attack it means he KNOWS he has lost on the substance.

And when a debater refuses to cite evidence, admits he relies upon evidence he's never seen, cites as "evidence" official reports that don't substantiate his claims, cherry-picks factoids and rumours despite massive contradictory evidence and common sense, yet nevertheless has the gall to insist that he is right, while the remainder of the world is wrong, you presumably claim this is debater has "won on the substance?"  Were this true, we would all have accepted the Warren Commission's conclusions and saved ourselves 40 years of effort.

The record will indicate I have never stooped to name-calling.

No, you specialize in hectoring, belittling, challenging others to disprove things that were never proved in the first instance, etc., etc.  Re-read all your own posts and you'll see precisely what all the rest of us do.

First you tried to imply there might not even BE a document linking Cubela with Kostikov. 

Anyone reading this threads knows full well that I have attempted - with no luck - to draw your attention to the fact that the mere existence of a document doesn't mean the contents of the document are true.  You may recall that Sy Hersh and Dan Rather got their bits'n'pieces caught in precisely that wringer, when they accepted as genuine documents that weren't real.  Readers of this thread also know that, despite your having glossed over it without comment, that I cited a Hoover memo about Oswald, the contents of which were wrong on every key detail about Oswald.  Does the document exist?  Sure.  We've both seen it.  Is it true?

Now, since I reported that it is in Larry's book, and you can hardly call Larry a xxxx, you give up that position, but you assume Larry thinks the document is a fraud (or if the document was not a fraud the report underlying it was a lie) even though, as you know, there is no such implication in Larry's book.

Feel free to revise what I've written as much as you like; members of this Forum are literate enough to discern the spin you feel compelled to put upon it.  You assume the existence of a document proves the contents of the document are accurate and true.  Others are free to dispute that position.  That is the point.  

I repeat what good would it do to produce the actual document? 

It would indicate you've made the effort to locate it and that you've seen it.  That's a start.  Thereafter, though reasonable people may disagree about the document's contents and provenance, it can at least be parsed to see if it's worth the paper it was written on, rather than simply accept its existence as proof of its veracity and authenticity.

Regardless of who it states could document a Kostikov/Cubela meeting, all you would do is claim the reporter of such meeting was a xxxx. 

Since we are dealing with an Agency that got SO MUCH WRONG, it is foolhardy to accept as fact anything and everything generated by such an Agency.  And since we know that same Agency did accept as true, or report as genuine, the observations of persons we know did lie, we must examine the documents and find the sources to determine whether the documents are genuine and the contents are accurate.  You seem to think this is an unreasonable position, and leave yourself vulnerable to being duped as a result.  Whereas others think that this is called "research" and "established investigative methodology."

If the document states the CIA secret surveillance camera had photos of Kostikov and Cubela entering the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City hand-in-hand you would simply claim no such photo ever existed.

No, but I would like to see such photos.  You may recall CIA claimed to have photos of Oswald in Mexico City.  Did they?  Have you seen them?  Nobody else has.  If they ever existed, they were never introduced as evidence by anyone at any time.  Yet, based upon CIA's papertrail claims of having taken such photos of "Oswald," you would have us believe the Agency's assertions, despite knowing they're wrong.

Given such shoddy work, how can you have such blind faith and trust in the documents of any agency so wholly bereft of credibility? 

Since both Thomas and Hancock report it, we do know this:  Fitzgerald was aware (but Angleton was not) of a report of Cubela meeting with Kostikov.  (You can assume it is false if you want but you have no basis to assume that.)

Well, I do have such a basis, actually.  It's a CIA report, and CIA has been so wrong about so much, that one placing any faith in its reports does so at one's own peril. 

Moreover, we have CIA reports that Kostikov was a specialist in assassinations and sabotage.  Do you have independent verification of this as fact, or are we merely to assume it to be true on CIA's say-so, or your own?  We have CIA reports on Cubela that are, if not demonstrably false, at odds with other facts and reports, including from Cubela himself.  Have you even bothered to entertain the notion that CIA could have been wrong [not sinister, necessarily, just wrong], or are we merely to assume it to be true on CIA's say-so, or your own?

Now since I am more interested in resolving the assassination than those of your ilk whose only agenda seems to be to blame the CIA,

If CIA comes in for some hard questioning, it is based upon its own past track record, not a pathological need to "blame" it, as you suggest.  If you are unfamiliar with that shoddy track record, perhaps some remedial reading is in order.  Perhaps you could start with Lopez and Hardaway and what they discovered about the organization you consider so infallibly sacrosanct.  Or, perhaps you could re-read the book that "rekindled" your interest in this case, Fonzi's "Last Investigation," since the author's conclusions are so diametrically opposite to your own vis a vis CIA.

I will raise a point not made in either book, but worthy of consideration:  as you know, Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris on October 29, 1963 (I assume you will concede THAT).  Query when did Fitzgerald first learn of Cubela's meeting with Kostikov, and did that not cause Fitzgerald any concern re Cubela's bona fides?  I think that is an interesting question worth some research.

And when you've done that research, we look forward to you sharing the fruits of those labours.  Perhaps you could help limn a more complete portrait of Fitzgerald, the man who lied about being a US Senator despite knowing the lie was self-defeating, and who withheld from the Kennedy White House - and its appointee to run the CIA -  that he was trying to have Castro killed while falsely using its imprimatur. 

If my scenario is right, and Cubela was a dangle, then, by accepting Cubela over the objections of Shackley and Langosch, Fitzgerald propably sealed JFK's fate.  Ironically, had the Kennedys not sacked Harvey, JFK may have lived.

In a previous post, Larry mentions that Morales correctly suspected that there were Castro infiltrators in the AMTRUNK operation.  It is interesting that the CIA people perceived as JFK's enemies were probably the smartest in suspecting Cuban traps.  The bunglers in the CIA, and I now refer specifically to Bissell (who not only bungled the BOP but also arranged the CIA's "marriage of convenience" with the MOB, and Fitzgerald, were Kennedy supporters.

In closing, I must add that if Cubela was indeed associating with the head of the KGB's assassination squad,

Do you have independent verification of Kostikov's purported role as "head of the KGB's assassination squad," or is this just another canard we are asked to uncritically swallow whole on CIA's say-so?

that fact certainly suggests Cuban complicity in the assassination.  Since you know concede the report exists, will you concede that UNLESS the report was false, the assassination was, more likely than not, Cuban-inspired?

For the umpteenth time, if you make the assertion, you provide the evidence.  Is there a reason to believe the assertions made by CIA, when it has been so wrong about so much?  If they will lie to each other, and withhold from each other, why do you insist we must uncritically accept anything it says about anyone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Larry Hancock]

I truly hesitate to jump back into this - I also would hate even more to jump back into the 8 CD's with all the CIA segragated files to locate the Kostikov document in question. I will say that based on my recollection of the document the contact between Kostikov and Cubela it was several years before 1963 during an official Cuban state visit by Cubela to Mexico. Its important to remember that Ksitikov was a senior political officer in the Soviet delegation in Mexico City. A meeting between he and Cubela over political and embassy affairs would be much less suspicious than Oswald running into Kostikov while trying to get a visa. It's also important to remember that Cubela was not attached to Cuban G2, was not a dedicated fan of either Fidel, Raul nor Che (and indeed had been a competitor to Castro at the time of the revolution). Cubela was simply one of the few Cubans relegated to a position where he was allowed to travel internationally as a political representative of the Cuban government. He was a basically playboy who happened to have been a violent student revlolutionary earlier; he was not a skilled or experienced covert operative, as the CIA itself sadly learned over the years.

Indeed it was on the trip in question to Mexico City that Cubela was first contacted by CIA and the recruitment process for him began. That took a considerable period of time of course.

If you take the time to slog though the massive Cubela files and on the Hernandez testimony on Cubela in particular you will quickly come to realize that Cubela would not by any imagination have been a controller for any Castro inspired plot, that he was very likely under surveillance by Castro and beyond that (as many of the AMTRUNK agents turned out to be) very likely cautioned in advance by Castro about American contacts and possibly reporting back some or all of them.

My advice to anyone who really wants to tackle this subject - buy the CIA segreagated collection from the ARRC, for sale via Rex Bradford. Slog though

the thousands of relevant documents on it and then you'll have the background for

some real dialog on the subject.

-- Larry

Robert wrote:

What a craven, cowardly position to adopt.  If somebody disagrees with you, then others are somehow implied "liars."  Is this really the best that you can do?  Since Larry Hancock, for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect, posts here, why don't you ask him if he thinks documents must be true, just because he has seen them?  Much hilarity should ensue.

Robert, I am sure most members understand that when a debater adopts an ad hominem attack it means he KNOWS he has lost on the substance.  The record will indicate I have never stooped to name-calling.

First you tried to imply there might not even BE a document linking Cubela with Kostikov.  Now, since I reported that it is in Larry's book, and you can hardly call Larry a xxxx, you give up that position, but you assume Larry thinks the document is a fraud (or if the document was not a fraud the report underlying it was a lie) even though, as you know, there is no such implication in Larry's book.

I repeat what good would it do to produce the actual document?  Regardless of who it states could document a Kostikov/Cubela meeting, all you would do is claim the reporter of such meeting was a xxxx.  If the document states the CIA secret surveillance camera had photos of Kostikov and Cubela entering the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City hand-in-hand you would simply claim no such photo ever existed.

Since both Thomas and Hancock report it, we do know this:  Fitzgerald was aware (but Angleton was not) of a report of Cubela meeting with Kostikov.  (You can assume it is false if you want but you have no basis to assume that.)

Now since I am more interested in resolving the assassination than those of your ilk whose only agenda seems to be to blame the CIA, I will raise a point not made in either book, but worthy of consideration:  as you know, Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris on October 29, 1963 (I assume you will concede THAT).  Query when did Fitzgerald first learn of Cubela's meeting with Kostikov, and did that not cause Fitzgerald any concern re Cubela's bona fides?  I think that is an interesting question worth some research.

If my scenario is right, and Cubela was a dangle, then, by accepting Cubela over the objections of Shackley and Langosch, Fitzgerald propably sealed JFK's fate.  Ironically, had the Kennedys not sacked Harvey, JFK may have lived.

In a previous post, Larry mentions that Morales correctly suspected that there were Castro infiltrators in the AMTRUNK operation.  It is interesting that the CIA people perceived as JFK's enemies were probably the smartest in suspecting Cuban traps.  The bunglers in the CIA, and I now refer specifically to Bissell (who not only bungled the BOP but also arranged the CIA's "marriage of convenience" with the MOB, and Fitzgerald, were Kennedy supporters.

In closing, I must add that if Cubela was indeed associating with the head of the KGB's assassination squad, that fact certainly suggests Cuban complicity in the assassination.  Since you know concede the report exists, will you concede that UNLESS the report was false, the assassination was, more likely than not, Cuban-inspired?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Stapleton]

Larry,

On an earlier post, you mentioned that Ruby recieved an injection of cash days before the assassination and he had visitors from LA. I was unaware of this. Can you tell me where I can find more info concerning these matters?