Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, I'm thinking you have not read SWHT but just in case...the answer to number 1 is quite easy. Martino's early statements were made specifically to tie Fidel Castro to Lee Oswald and for that matter to Jack Ruby. He wanted to point the thread of conspiracy to Castro and initially the FBI and Director Hoover were very interested in that connection. The problem was that Martino was working after the fact, the plan to tie Oswald to Castro more tightly had aborted in Dallas with Oswald's capture. So Martino and others were doing their best to make up for that, it was a pick up effort lacking any hard data and when Martino could not provide that, the FBI lost interest. From that point on Martino just shut up about the whole thing, only revealing a small part of his involvement to family members early on. He provided further detail - still quite limited - to two long time friends not long before his death. Clearly he never intended it to go further, they both described his remarks more in the nature of a reminiscence. If the HSCA had not come along and one of them determine to share the information anonymously, nothing more would ever have been heard of his remarks.

As to number two, for me the best explanation for me is being able to determine the context of the difference between the two statements, the situational effect. If I can clearly define two separate sets of motives for the statements, each related strictly to the timing and context of the statement, then I can reach a subjective conclusion. I would also caution that Martino himself was an eyewitness to only his activities, self admittedly had only a very limited view of the conspiracy plus a bit of gossip he no doubt heard - he was in no way a major figure in the conspiracy or the actual attack.

Note, I qualify the my both my criteria and intepretation as subjective. My view of what is accurate and truthful is specifically my own, I share it but have no interest in evangelizing it nor spending too much time arguing the logic or my interpretations....the qualification is not to appear to be difficult, but merely to be forthright, Larry

OK Larry, your first paragraph gives an answer to question "what did Martino do or say?" -- but I'm still a little unclear about the "why" question?

WHY did Martino (or others) want to deliberately lie to tie Castro to Oswald and Ruby? Are you saying it was solely for political and public policy reasons -- i.e. to implicate Castro so that we would attack Cuba and remove Castro? And everybody involved in that enterprise did not have any concerns that their lie would unravel and ultimately be discovered -- because they thought they would succeed in their murder of JFK -- and there would be no adverse consequences even if their lie was discovered after the fact? OR perhaps that they were prepared to live with the adverse consequences -- as long as their plot resulted in the removal of Castro?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Larry Hancock]

Since I devote the better part of two chapters involving a lot of pages to this I'll do my best here but it will be abbreviated. The short answer is that the attack in Dallas had a secondary element that would have tied Oswald either directly acting for Castro's agents or at a minimum known to and incited by those agents. That was supposed to raise public outrage to the point of demanding military action against Cuba. Whether or not that was truly a goal of the high level figures who stimulated the attack or just a sop to the Cuban exiles involved is uncertain. I'm told that Martino and possibly others eventually began to think that perhaps that they had simply been manipulated and that was never a primary goal at all - it was just about eliminating JFK. In their original view the frame was supposed to be sold enough that it would stimulate a spasm type response without too much thinking or consideration - and I can show you at least one major Texas newspaper whose headline was (paraphrase from memory - Castro Supporter Kills President). Given the general feeling of the nation only a year after the Cuban missile crisis, its possible that it might not have been that hard a sell. Indeed the suppression of a true conspiracy investigation, directed by Johnson himself, was based in the fact that such an investigation might indeed fan calls for action against a communist conspiracy....by the Cubans, by the Russians, but either way it could lead to war.

One of the problems is that we don't know all the details of the plan to fully frame Oswald immediately following the attack, Martino relates that his capture aborted that plan...he probably did not know the details himself. In SWHT I speculate on certain elements that might have been used in the frame but it is truly just speculation. As to adverse consequences, what could they be? About the only thing I can think of is that it would damage their reputation as FBI informants in the future, hardly a real concern for those involved - some of whom were driven very much by emotion, not by consideration of long term consequences.

[Ernie Lazar]

Since I devote the better part of two chapters involving a lot of pages to this I'll do my best here but it will be abbreviated. The short answer is that the attack in Dallas had a secondary element that would have tied Oswald either directly acting for Castro's agents or at a minimum known to and incited by those agents. That was supposed to raise public outrage to the point of demanding military action against Cuba. Whether or not that was truly a goal of the high level figures who stimulated the attack or just a sop to the Cuban exiles involved is uncertain. I'm told that Martino and possibly others eventually began to think that perhaps that they had simply been manipulated and that was never a primary goal at all - it was just about eliminating JFK. In their original view the frame was supposed to be sold enough that it would stimulate a spasm type response without too much thinking or consideration - and I can show you at least one major Texas newspaper whose headline was (paraphrase from memory - Castro Supporter Kills President). Given the general feeling of the nation only a year after the Cuban missile crisis, its possible that it might not have been that hard a sell. Indeed the suppression of a true conspiracy investigation, directed by Johnson himself, was based in the fact that such an investigation might indeed fan calls for action against a communist conspiracy....by the Cubans, by the Russians, but either way it could lead to war.

One of the problems is that we don't know all the details of the plan to fully frame Oswald immediately following the attack, Martino relates that his capture aborted that plan...he probably did not know the details himself. In SWHT I speculate on certain elements that might have been used in the frame but it is truly just speculation. As to adverse consequences, what could they be? About the only thing I can think of is that it would damage their reputation as FBI informants in the future, hardly a real concern for those involved - some of whom were driven very much by emotion, not by consideration of long term consequences.

Well, Larry, I am still left with my larger philosophical questions which actually are questions regarding human nature and about what we have learned from all accumulated historical knowledge regarding political conspiracies.

In message #1101 I copied a listing of the names of 214 persons who have been associated in some manner with various theories re: a JFK murder plot. I copy it again below just for reference purposes. Most of these individuals have been accused of complicity or accused of being an actual co-conspirator or somebody who facilitated the plot.

As both you and Paul have observed upon several occasions, when conspiracies are formulated and then executed, there is always an inner circle and an outer circle -- so the knowledge of the conspiracy differs depending upon one's relative position in the conspiracy. The inner circle may consist of just a handful of truly knowledgeable persons while the outer circle may be much larger.

So, first, my human nature questions:

1. Do you think the inner circle folks ever discussed or mentioned their plot (before or after the fact) with ANY of their relatives (such as wife, husband, brother, sister, father, mother, children, uncle, cousin?)

2. Do you think the inner circle folks ever discussed or mentioned their plot (before or after the fact) with anybody NOT involved in the plot (such as trusted friends, neighbors, co-workers?)

3. Then repeat the same two questions - but substitute "outer circle" individuals

4. There are many examples of individuals who supposedly had some kind of foreknowledge concerning a plot to murder JFK. I previously quoted a comment reportedly made by Herbert Philbrick. There are many other such comments. What do we take away from this? Can we agree that criminal conspiracies often result in people talking about their plot (either before the event or afterward)?

If we can agree on the general principle I have just identified, i.e. inner circle and outer circle people talk (even boast) about their plot - especially when it has been successful --- then why don't we have more indisputable evidence of such "talking" -- and I don't necessarily mean somebody like Martino who waits until the very end of his life.

5. For example, why don't we have many more people like Harry Dean who claim they were in an outer circle but they supposedly had direct knowledge of the plot -- and why don't we have lots of non-participants who were told about the plot (before or after the fact) by their inner or outer circle contacts?

AND, most importantly, why don't we have more evidence from all of these folks (inner circle, outer circle, and all of the persons they spoke to) --- which confirms the existence of their plot, confirms the specific details of how the plot was to be executed, confirms the purpose and objectives of the plot? AND more details regarding the evaluations made by the plotters after their plot was executed, i.e. did they achieve what they wanted to achieve? Did they have any regrets? What unanticipated developments occurred and how were they handled? Did they need to eliminate certain inner circle or outer circle participants or persons whom they talked to about their plot?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How many of these people talked to somebody about the plot (before or after the fact)?

1. Tony Accardo

2. Dean Andrews

3. Joseph Alsop

4. James Jesus Angleton

5. Bobby Baker

6. Robert "Barnes" Baker

7. Guy Banister

8. W.O. Bankston

9. Benard Baker

10. Charles Batchelor

11. Benjamin Bauman

12. Thomas Beckham

13. Jerry Belknap

14. Paul Bethel

15. Louis M. Bloomfield

16. Hale Boggs

17. Martin Bormann

18. Orlando Bosch

19. George Bouhe

20. Jack Bowen

21. Eugene Hale Brady

22. Edger Eugene Bradley

23. Leslie Norman Bradley

24. "Brother in law"

25. McGeorge Bundy

26. George Bush (Sr.)

27. George Butler

28. Harold Byrd

29. General Charles Cabell

30. Earle Cabell

31. Claude Barnes Capehart

32. Carlos (unknown last name)

33. Alex Carlson

34.Dan Carswell

35. Cliff Carter

36. Lt. Colonel Bevin Cass

37. Luis Castillo

38. Fidel Castro

39. Max Cherry

40. Joe Civello

41. Ed Clark

42.Thomas Clines

43. Joseph R. Cody

44. Roy M. Cohn

45. Lucien Conein

46. John Connally

47. Ramon Cortes

48. Kent Courtney

49. William Crarver

50. John Crawford

51. Robert Crowley

52. Kenneth Hudson Croy

53.Jesse Curry

54. William Dalzell

55.I. Irving Davidson

56. Harry Dean (aka Harry Fallon)

57. Patrick Dean

58. Bill Decker

59. Louise Decker

60. Eladio del Valle

61. John De Mencil

62. George de Mohrenschildt

63. Herminio Diaz

64. Joe DiMaggio

65. Walter Dornberger

66. Robert Eastering

67. Jack Faulkner

68. Fernandez Feito

69. David Ferrie

70. Abe Fortas

71.Will Fritz

72. Maurice Gatlin

73. William Gaudet

74. Sam Giancana

75. G. Wray Gill

76. Manual Garcia Gonzales

77. T. Gonzales

78. William Greer

79. Peter Gregory

80. Antoine Guerini

81. Billy James Hargis.

82. Roy Hargraves

83. William "Blackie" Harrison

84. William Harvey

85. Richard Helmes

86. Gerald Patrick Hemming

87. Jim Hicks

88. Jimmy Hoffa

89.Chauncy Holt

90. J. Edger Hoover

91. Lawrence Howard

92. David Hoy

93. Patrick Hoy

94. Howard Hughes

95. E. Howard Hunt

96. H.L. Hunt

97. Morris Jaffe

98. Walter Jenkins

99. Lyndon Baines Johnson

100. Mr. Jones (fake name)

101. Clarence Jones

102. Clifford Jones

103. Sam Kail

104. Roy Kellerman

105. Nikita Khrushchev

106. Jules Ricco Kimble

107. Pat Kirkwood

108. Fred Korth

109. Jake Kosloff

110. Valeriy Kostikov

111. Larry LaBorde

112. Ed Lansdale

113. Myer Lansky

114. Richard Lauchli

115. Jack Lawrence

116. Yves Leandez

117. James Melvin Liggett

118. Gilberto Policarpo Lopez

119. Grayston Lynch

120. Quinton Pino Machado

121. General John Magruder

122. Robert Maheu

123. George Mandel (aka Giogio Mantello)

124. Amos Manor

125. Carlos Marcello

126. Layton Martens

127. Jack Martin

128. John Martino

129. Rolando Masferrer

130. John McCloy

131. John McCone

132. Carl McIntire

133. Robert Mckeown

134. Mike McLaney

135. Gordon Mclendon

136. Jim McMahon

137. I.J. McWillie

138. Major General John B. Medaris

139. I.D. Miller

140. Joseph Milteer

141.William Monteleone

142. David Sanchez Morales

143. Clint Murchison

144. Ferenc Nagy

145. Madame Nhu

146. Richard Nixon

147. Gorgen Noval

148. Dr. Alton Ochsner

149. Ken O'Donnell

150. Harry Olsen

151. Aristotle Onassis

152. Marino Oswald

153. Michael Paine

154. Ruth Paine

155. Kim Philby

156. David Atlee Philips

157. Robert "Tosh" Plumlee

158. Luis Posada

159. James W. Powell

160. Jack Puterbaugh

161. Carlos Quiroga

162. Paul Raigorodsky

163. William Reily

164. Sid Richardson

165. William Robertson

166. Charles Rogers

167. Alexander Rorke

168. Johnny Roselli

169. Eugene Rostow

170. John Rousselot

171. James Rowley

172. Jack Ruby

173. Ruth Ann (last name unknown)

174. Mike Ryan

175. Emilio Santana

176. Felipe Vidal Santiago

177. Saul (Last name unknown)

178. Aldo Vera Seraphine

179. Theodore Shackly

180. Clay Shaw

181. Walter Sheridan

182. Charles Siragusa

183. "Slim"

184. Mr. Smith (fake name)

185. Sergio Arcacha Smith

186. Carlos Prio Socarras

187. Jean Rene Souetre

188. Arlen Spector

189. Lew Sterrett

190. Adlai Stevenson

191. Frank Sturgis (Frank Fiorini)

192. William Sullivan

193. Kerry Thornley

194. J.D.Tippit

195. Santo Trafficante

196. "Troit"

197. Tammi true

198. Igor Vagonov

199. Adolf Vermont Jr.

200. Wernher Von Braun

201. Igor Voshinin

202. Henry Wade

203. General Edwin Walker

204. Brock Wall

205. George Wallace

206. Harry Weatherford

207. Ed Weisl

208. Mitch WerBell

209. LT. Colonel George Whitmeyer

210. General Charles Willoughby

211. Edwin Wilson

212. Louie Witt

213. Mr. X

214. Abraham Zapruder

Edited May 20, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, not to be ill mannered but the answers to your questions are in my books, in particular Someone Would Have Talked addresses your most basic question.

1. Do you think the inner circle folks ever discussed or mentioned their plot (before or after the fact) with ANY of their relatives (such as wife, husband, brother, sister, father, mother, children, uncle, cousin?)

.... I view the conspiracy in a much more complex, than inner circle/outer circle, evolving in an iterative fashion with instigators and operators, compartmentalized and organized in subsets for specific tasks. Nothing as simple as an inner an outer circle. Between SWHT and NEXUS I offer my analysis of who talked to whom, before and after.

2. Do you think the inner circle folks ever discussed or mentioned their plot (before or after the fact) with anybody NOT involved in the plot (such as trusted friends, neighbors, co-workers?)

.....the answer, although not in the "inner circle" paradigm is yes, which is the reason for the title of Someone Would Have Talked.

I can only offer the books to you in full answer to your question, if you wish to read them and continue the dialog I will be happy to do that as I have time. I've moved on to other research projects and am in the midst of my fifth book on Cold War history, I'm afraid I just don't have the time or inclination for philosophical questions I've already tried to tackle in my JFK books....and by the way, the introduction to SWHT actually discusses the points you raise here since they were some of the first issues that occurred to me as well. Larry

Edited May 20, 2014 by Larry Hancock

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, not to be ill mannered but the answers to your questions are in my books, in particular Someone Would Have Talked addresses your most basic question.

1. Do you think the inner circle folks ever discussed or mentioned their plot (before or after the fact) with ANY of their relatives (such as wife, husband, brother, sister, father, mother, children, uncle, cousin?)

.... I view the conspiracy in a much more complex, than inner circle/outer circle, evolving in an iterative fashion with instigators and operators, compartmentalized and organized in subsets for specific tasks. Nothing as simple as an inner an outer circle. Between SWHT and NEXUS I offer my analysis of who talked to whom, before and after.

2. Do you think the inner circle folks ever discussed or mentioned their plot (before or after the fact) with anybody NOT involved in the plot (such as trusted friends, neighbors, co-workers?)

.....the answer, although not in the "inner circle" paradigm is yes, which is the reason for the title of Someone Would Have Talked.

I can only offer the books to you in full answer to your question, if you wish to read them and continue the dialog I will be happy to do that as I have time. I've moved on to other research projects and am in the midst of my fifth book on Cold War history, I'm afraid I just don't have the time or inclination for philosophical questions I've already tried to tackle in my JFK books....and by the way, the introduction to SWHT actually discusses the points you raise here since they were some of the first issues that occurred to me as well. Larry

Well, I will review your books -- but just as a general observation -- sometimes we humans make matters more "complex" than the actual reality of the situation.

It is paradoxical or counter-intuitive perhaps but on the one hand we want simple easily understood answers but on the other hand we sometimes artificially create complexity to address what should be Ockham's Razor situations. There are always an infinite number of possible but more "complex" explanations -- and perhaps most JFK conspiracy theories rely upon those sorts of complexities.

[Larry Hancock]

I could not agree more Ernie, I think the Kennedy assassination had been made far more complex than it was in reality, which is why I'm generally not the favorite author among folks believing in what I term

"grand" conspiracies. On the other hand, I think it would be naive to think that "conspiracies" do not exist in history, although in the broader scheme of thingsits hard to differentiate many commercial, financial and political activities from what Peter Dale Scott terns "Deep Politics".

As a side note I should mention that I spent the better part of a decade examine the majority of names on your list - not all - as well as a few others. If you don't find them in the book or find them not associated with Dallas that is because the criteria I enumerate at the beginning of SWHT led me to leave them out....my choice, part objective and part subjective.

If you would like to throw questions to me as you read I generally respond more quickly to email. larryjoe@westok.net Larry

[Paul Brancato]

A breath of fresh air, in a way, on this thread. Ernie - I hope you read SWHT. I'm going to reread it.

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

5. For example, why don't we have many more people like Harry Dean who claim they were in an outer circle but they supposedly had direct knowledge of the plot -- and why don't we have lots of non-participants who were told about the plot (before or after the fact) by their inner or outer circle contacts?

AND, most importantly, why don't we have more evidence from all of these folks (inner circle, outer circle, and all of the persons they spoke to) --- which confirms the existence of their plot, confirms the specific details of how the plot was to be executed, confirms the purpose and objectives of the plot? AND more details regarding the evaluations made by the plotters after their plot was executed, i.e. did they achieve what they wanted to achieve? Did they have any regrets? What unanticipated developments occurred and how were they handled? Did they need to eliminate certain inner circle or outer circle participants or persons whom they talked to about their plot?

<snip>

Ernie, it's a fair question: why don't we have more non-participants who were told about the plot (before or after the fact) by their inner or outer circle contacts?

One plausible answer is the case of PFC Eugene Dinkin, a crypto-analyst in the US military, who, only weeks before the JFK murder, reported officially that he obtained information that there was a plot to kill JFK in the works, that involved people in the military and people on the ultra-right.

Nine days before JFK was murdered, PFC Eugene Dinkin was arrested and placed in an insane asylum. He was threatened with electro-shock unless he changed his story. He eventually changed his story -- but the CIA records of his original story were more recently released -- and revealed by Dick Russell in his 2003 book, The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Loran Hall chose to speak to the FBI about his connections with Silvia Odio (who swore she saw Lee Harvey Oswald with two Latinos at her home), and admitted he was one of the Latinos. Shortly afterward, Loran Hall endured two attempts on his life -- and he changed his story.

Former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen tells of a man named, "Ramon," who gave him all the details about the JFK murder before it happened -- but "Ramon" refused to be identified after JFK was murdered.

Former FBI agent Don Adams tells of a man named, Joe Milteer, who was secretly recorded shortly before the JFK murder that JFK was to be murdered from a high building with a high-powered rifle, and that a patsy would be picked up within hours to throw the public off. When the FBI questioned him, he claimed it was only gossip. Don Adams was unconvinced.

Well-known JFK researcher Bud Fensterwald learned from one Gilbert Le Cavelier that around April-May of 1963 Ex-General Edwin Walker met with famed OAS sniper (who allegedly tried to kill Charles de Gaulle) Jean Souetre, who at that time was in the USA advising and coordinating Alpha 66, whose leader, Cuban Exile Antonio Veciana, claims on film to have had lunch with Lee Harvey Oswald and a CIA agent that summer.

So -- my point is that people have come forward -- and they are generally ignored. One was locked up in an insane asylum. The number of people who have died suddenly after claiming to have had eye-witness evidence of a JFK plot is a staggering number (cf. early works by Penn Jones).

Now -- one might think that JFK conspiracy people are simply fringe element types. That is the popular notion -- but actually many are Historians that teach in Universities (e.g. David Lifton, to name only one).

Further, although NARA is rather expensive, they do provide some information for free -- including the 1979 report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. This was an official US government body that published the following in 1979:

"C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that

President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

A fuller reading of this startling and official viewpoint can be read freely at NARA from this URL:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html

In my own Unified Field Theory of the JFK Assassination, I propose that all of the witnesses listed above were telling the TRUTH. There are others, too.

Like Harry Dean, each one of these witnesses saw one small part of the Plot to Murder JFK. (To this day, Wes Swearingen and Don Adams are each convinced that his own experiences are the most important of the lot -- and trump all the other stories.)

After working with Harry Dean for nearly two years, I'm convinced that the only way to arrive at the TRUTH is to combine all these stories -- all the stories of all those with actual eye-witness testimony -- into one "Unified Field" theory of the murder of JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

As I was going through some of my JFK-related info, I came across the attached FBI memo which might be of historical interest. It addresses the allegation that LHO was an FBI informant.

FBI on LHO as FBI informant.PDF

[Paul Trejo]

As I was going through some of my JFK-related info, I came across the attached FBI memo which might be of historical interest. It addresses the allegation that LHO was an FBI informant.

Ernie, that memo is now famous -- and it played a role in the 1965 book by Warren Commission member and 1974 US President, Gerald Ford, enitled, Portrait of an Assassin.

Congressman Ford agreed with the Warren Report -- however he began his book with this controversy, as it had been pivotal in early 1964, and admittedly upset the Warren Commission.

As that memo you shared dimly conceals, the source of the rumor that Lee Harvey Oswald was an informer for the FBI came from no hidden source or sensationalist newspaper -- rather, it came from two high-ranking Texas officials, namely: (1) Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade; and (2) Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr.

Information had circulated in Dallas since December 1963, and eventually was published in the Houston Post on January 1, 1964, saying that Lee Harvey Oswald was an FBI informant operating under the code number S172, earning $200 a month.

Whatever the details of that news article, the details held by Wade and Carr were more official -- so that Rankin and Dulles invited them to Washington DC to discuss the matter.

Naturally it would be an embarrassment for the FBI if this turned out to have any smidgen of truth to it. Yet remember that Wesley Swearingen, former FBI Agent and now a whistle-blower, in his 2008 book, To Kill a President, said that local FBI offices might retain low-paid informers (under $300 monthly) without notifying FBI Headquarters!

So -- at least it remains plausible.

In any case, considerable pressure was put on DA Henry Wade and Attorney General Waggoner Carr -- and the decision was finally made that they would pull back their evidence if only J. Edgar Hoover would himself testify before the Warren Commission!

It was decided -- Hoover would submit a sworn affidavit to the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald never had anything to do with the FBI -- and that would settle the matter. (That affidavit is now a part of the Warren Report and US history.)

Well -- it silenced the matter for a year or so, but then Congressman Gerald Ford revived the issue in the first pages of his book, released a few months after the Warren Report was released!

There's lots of researech about this controversy. Henry Wade came under scrutiny during the 50th anniversary of the JFK murder. Here's one of many blurbs: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/how-henry-wade-da-of-dallas-ran-afoul-of-j-edgar-hoover/

Also, in this context, here is a long-supressed yet now-famous conversation between members of the Warren Commission (Rankin, Dulles, Boggs) about various controveries involving the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. http://jfklancer.com/Investigations.html

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 24, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

As I was going through some of my JFK-related info, I came across the attached FBI memo which might be of historical interest. It addresses the allegation that LHO was an FBI informant.

Ernie, that memo is now famous -- and it played a role in the 1965 book by Warren Commission member and 1974 US President, Gerald Ford, enitled, Portrait of an Assassin.

Congressman Ford agreed with the Warren Report -- however he began his book with this controversy, as it had been pivotal in early 1964, and admittedly upset the Warren Commission.

As that memo you shared dimly conceals, the source of the rumor that Lee Harvey Oswald was an informer for the FBI came from no hidden source or sensationalist newspaper -- rather, it came from two high-ranking Texas officials, namely: (1) Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade; and (2) Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr.

Information had circulated in Dallas since December 1963, and eventually was published in the Houston Post on January 1, 1964, saying that Lee Harvey Oswald was an FBI informant operating under the code number S172, earning $200 a month.

Whatever the details of that news article, the details held by Wade and Carr were more official -- so that Rankin and Dulles invited them to Washington DC to discuss the matter.

Naturally it would be an embarrassment for the FBI if this turned out to have any smidgen of truth to it. Yet remember that Wesley Swearingen, former FBI Agent and now a whistle-blower, in his 2008 book, To Kill a President, said that local FBI offices might retain low-paid informers (under $300 monthly) without notifying FBI Headquarters!

So -- at least it remains plausible.

In any case, considerable pressure was put on DA Henry Wade and Attorney General Waggoner Carr -- and the decision was finally made that they would pull back their evidence if only J. Edgar Hoover would himself testify before the Warren Commission!

It was decided -- Hoover would submit a sworn affidavit to the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald never had anything to do with the FBI -- and that would settle the matter. (That affidavit is now a part of the Warren Report and US history.)

Well -- it silenced the matter for a year or so, but then Congressman Gerald Ford revived the issue in the first pages of his book, released a few months after the Warren Report was released!

There's lots of researech about this controversy. Henry Wade came under scrutiny during the 50th anniversary of the JFK murder. Here's one of many blurbs: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/how-henry-wade-da-of-dallas-ran-afoul-of-j-edgar-hoover/

Also, in this context, here is a long-supressed yet now-famous conversation between members of the Warren Commission (Rankin, Dulles, Boggs) about various controveries involving the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. http://jfklancer.com/Investigations.html

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

The problem with the allegation that "Oswald was an FBI informant operating under the code number S172, earning $200 a month" is that the FBI did not use the type of code you refer to for any of its informants.

All FBI informants were assigned a symbol number which first identified the FBI office where they originated. So, for example, Dallas was "DL" -- which means that the symbol number you referenced (S172) was not an FBI code since no FBI field office had an abbreviation of "S". All FBI offices had a 2-character code.

There were other FBI codes used at various times. For example, during and just after World War II, there was "CNDI" (Confidential National Defense Informant). Matt Cvetic was "CNDI C-113"

In later years, the FBI appended the field office code to their CNDI codes -- so, for example, Howard Thompson was "CNDI-SF-1604-S". [He and his wife were informants for the San Francisco field office. The "S" suffix was used to designate "security informant".] There was also a code "CS" used for a "Confidential Source".

Other codes were used as suffixes. So "R" referred to "racial informants". "CI" referred to "criminal informants" "EX" referred to "extremist informants" and so forth.

As you might expect, FBI offices which had the greatest number of informants inside the CPUSA were those locations where the Communist Party had the greatest number of members and sympathizers -- which is why offices like San Francisco and New York and Chicago often had 4-digit informant codes. [4-digit codes were in use before the 1960's. For example, Morris Childs was CG-5824-S*. His brother Jack was NY-694-S*]

However, the entire state of Texas had virtually no Communist Party presence. See partial listing below of CPUSA members (by state) for 1961 and 1962. The small number of CPUSA members in Texas would make it highly unlikely that any Dallas security informant would be designated as informant #172 -- when you consider that there were less than 40 CP members in the entire state! I checked the FBI Security Index file before typing this reply. In November 1962, Dallas field office reported 17 Communists listed on its Security Index. As of January 15, 1963, they reported 16.

Some of the informant or confidential source categories used by the FBI over time were as follows:

Communist Party members

Confidential Sources

Confidential Sources-Extremist

Criminal Informants

Extremist Informants

Extremist Confidential Sources

Extremist Informants, Ghetto

Extremist Informants, Probationary

Extremist Informants, Potential

Extremist Informants Urban (replaced “Ghetto”)

Panel Sources

Racial Informants

Potential Security Informant

Racial Informants, Approved

Racial Informants (Ghetto)

Racial Informants, Probationary

Racial Informants (Ghetto) Probationary

Security Informant

If that "S-172" number was genuine, then perhaps LHO was an informant for some other agency or some Police Department?

CPUSA MEMBERS BY STATES

6/30/61 = 5262 [NYC 100-80638, #1882]

AK = 0

AR = 0

AZ = 20

CA = 979

DC = 7

FL =36

GA = 3

IL = 443

KY = 0

LA= 11

MD = 38

MA = 96

MI = 203

MS = 0

MO = 49

NJ = 155

NY = 2006

NC = 1

OH = 164

OR = 43

PA = 164

SC = 0

TN = 0

TX = 35

VA = 9

WA = 235

WY = 0

3/31/62 = 5164 [NYC 100-80638, #1933]

AZ = 20

CA = 989

DC = 7

FL = 33

IL = 447

IN = 52

LA = 10

MD = 40

MA = 93

MI = 194

MN = 185

MS = 0

NV = 0

NJ = 150

NY = 1988

NC = 19

OH = 161

OR = 40

PA = 161

TX = 29

VA = 8

WI = 113

WY = 0

[Paul Trejo]

...Since you have read SWHT you know that I actually name at least three people who I present as having gone to Dallas for the attack, with proof they were in Dallas...

Larry, I have your 480-page Someone Would Have Talked (SWHT/2010) in my hands tonight, and I'm still struggling to find the three names of the three people whom you named as having gone to Dallas to murder JFK. Please direct me to the chapter you have in mind.

...There is no way for me to boil this down to a set of exact names -- and frankly that's not really critical to understanding the conspiracy.

- Larry

Larry, I respectfully question this premise -- I suspect that naming the ground-crew is actually critical to understanding the conspiracy. Without it, the vast universe of potential plotters at the levels of high finance, politics, bureaucracy and so on, just spin on and on.

My evidence is that one of the most popular CT's today is that LBJ was behind the JFK murder -- mainly based on speculation and a little circumstantial evidence. Others think the Secret Service confessions are ample to close the case. Others are content to blame J. Edgar Hoover. Others are content to say, CIA-Mafia and close the book. Others want to say, Joseph Milteer, and close the book.

This chaos can be resolved in only one way, IMHO, and that's by naming the ground crew.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul you could start with Felipe Vidal Santiago, Roy Hargraves and John Martino. I also speculate that Rip Robertson was there as an adviser. I offer other names including, including Herminio Diaz Garcia, of exiles who could have been involved but who we cannot independently place in Dallas. In regard to other names, they are speculative and the individuals are still living so I will not name publicly them here although I mention their names in the book without direct accusation. I also name at least one individual who traveled from LA to Dallas as a courier to provide money to Ruby for his role. That person was known to be associated with John Roselli. In another location I present the connection from Roselli to the recruitment of Ruby's lawyer after the shooting.

As to your focus on the team, as I go to great lengths to develop in NEXUS, it was never - never - never - CIA assassination tradecraft to have officers or known assets directly involved in such actions. Individuals who CIA officers had worked with were "directed", encouraged, equipped etc for such actions but in the interest of deniablity, they were always well insulated from the officers and the agency - and in known operations from the top down no more than a handful of people would have knowledge of the action.

I'll leave you with the ground crew but if the assassination was actually initiated by intelligence professionals then you are whiffing in the wind because that's exactly where the organizers would want you to be....forever....

[Gene Kelly]

Larry/Paul:

As a physicist, I'm reminded by your debate of Einstein's later years where he pursued (unsuccessfully) a grand unified field theory that combined all forces (gravitation, elelectromagnetic and nuclear) in a simple and elegant fashion. His work in gravitation was exceptional and remains the most amazing and impressive of scientific discoveries. Today (and more than 50+ years after his death), physicists are taking his work to a new level with string theory, cosmology and quantum mechanics. Einstein remains "correct" although every aspect of his work has been challenged every year and built upon... and he believed strongly that the answer (to pulling it all together) is to be found in a more simple theory but one that explained it all.

This thread and its philosophical comments seem analogous. Physicists struggle to understand how the world really works (small and large) and our understanding evolves with time. What we think we know turns out to be much different as better small scale and large scale observations are made... requiring an open mind and humility. Theories (both inductive and deductive) are proposed, tested, modified and built upon. Some of them (e.g. quantum mechanics) severely test our human ability to comprehend and believe... they go against our intuition and "common sense" but only because they are based on our limited vision and experience.

Back to JFK... was there an inner and outer circle, or is it a more complex structure? Should it be a more simple explanation? How can a list of 250+ people involved not leave a better trail of anecdotes and incriminating testimony? Can the ground crew lead to the larger connections? Should we suspect Dulles, Lemay, Suite 8F, or LBJ? Such constructs only represent models ... our way of trying to get our arms around it all. But the map is not the territory. I believe the fuller explanation (the unvarnished truth) is non-linear and something not easily accepted (i.e. commonly seen) by most of us.

Looking at JFK as a scientist, what makes it difficult is that we cannot easily test our models and theories. We are relegated to discussion threads and scholarly books (i.e. research). The facts were either destroyed (intentionally) or at best made very difficult to obtain. Aggravating this is disinformation designed to confuse, and determined entities devoted to blocking access and diverting inquiry. One does see that pattern in the history of scientific inquiry as well. But the people who executed this plot did it in a way that is impossible to unravel... they knew how to plan it, distance themselves from it, and protect it vigorously after after the fact. There is some early work (albeit incomplete) by Lane, Garrison, HSCA, and more recently AARB that represents legitimate JFK inquiry. But the trail is cold and the principals are no longer on this planet.

Who or what will tell us we are correct?

Gene

[Ernie Lazar]

Larry/Paul:

As a physicist, I'm reminded by your debate of Einstein's later years where he pursued (unsuccessfully) a grand unified field theory that combined all forces (gravitation, elelectromagnetic and nuclear) in a simple and elegant fashion. His work in gravitation was exceptional and remains the most amazing and impressive of scientific discoveries. Today (and more than 50+ years after his death), physicists are taking his work to a new level with string theory, cosmology and quantum mechanics. Einstein remains "correct" although every aspect of his work has been challenged every year and built upon... and he believed strongly that the answer (to pulling it all together) is to be found in a more simple theory but one that explained it all.

This thread and its philosophical comments seem analogous. Physicists struggle to understand how the world really works (small and large) and our understanding evolves with time. What we think we know turns out to be much different as better small scale and large scale observations are made... requiring an open mind and humility. Theories (both inductive and deductive) are proposed, tested, modified and built upon. Some of them (e.g. quantum mechanics) severely test our human ability to comprehend and believe... they go against our intuition and "common sense" but only because they are based on our limited vision and experience.

Back to JFK... was there an inner and outer circle, or is it a more complex structure? Should it be a more simple explanation? How can a list of 250+ people involved not leave a better trail of anecdotes and incriminating testimony? Can the ground crew lead to the larger connections? Should we suspect Dulles, Lemay, Suite 8F, or LBJ? Such constructs only represent models ... our way of trying to get our arms around it all. But the map is not the territory. I believe the fuller explanation (the unvarnished truth) is non-linear and something not easily accepted (i.e. commonly seen) by most of us.

Looking at JFK as a scientist, what makes it difficult is that we cannot easily test our models and theories. We are relegated to discussion threads and scholarly books (i.e. research). The facts were either destroyed (intentionally) or at best made very difficult to obtain. Aggravating this is disinformation designed to confuse, and determined entities devoted to blocking access and diverting inquiry. One does see that pattern in the history of scientific inquiry as well. But the people who executed this plot did it in a way that is impossible to unravel... they knew how to plan it, distance themselves from it, and protect it vigorously after after the fact. There is some early work (albeit incomplete) by Lane, Garrison, HSCA, and more recently AARB that represents legitimate JFK inquiry. But the trail is cold and the principals are no longer on this planet.

Who or what will tell us we are correct?

Gene

I agree with almost everything you wrote. My only observation is that the larger a conspiracy (i.e. the more actors in, and parts to, the conspiracy) the more unlikely it is to prevent exposure -- particularly over long periods of time.

I have discussed this In my online article about conspiracy theories -- but most political conspiracy theories seem to operate upon the principle that conspirators have super-human qualities -- they are exceptionally intelligent, they are not susceptible to ordinary human deficiencies or quirks or idiosyncrasies. They are presented as omniscient (having thought of everything that could possibly go wrong--and having "planned" for it in advance); they never experience unintended consequences as a result of their plot (i.e. they have pre-determined everything that might go wrong and have developed plans "b", "c", and "d" to address every eventuality).

This explains why 40+ years after the fact, virtually nobody has come forward to "confess" their participation in the plot or to reveal their specific knowledge about the participants and facilitators. Instead, you have folks like Harry Dean who present information which cannot be verified or which can be easily falsified.

And, as you correctly point out, researchers must then deal with the "cold" trail and the fact that the primary suspects are all dead.

Has there ever been a murder of a political figure which has NOT produced some sort of conspiracy theory?

Has there ever been a murder of a political figure which has been explained to everybody's satisfaction? (ok, not 100% -- but at least 95% of all people accept the explanation??)

Is there ANYBODY reading this thread who believes a final, undisputed answer to JFK's murder will be in existence 10 years from now? 20 years from now? 100 years from now?