Pure Speculation

[John Dolva]

reading about the history of the junkie virus got me thinking about Angletons mirrors and his orchid interests. The junkie virus was distributed in a pirated game level that quickly spread around the world before it was decoded. one of the problems was that the virus had been encrypted, then that encryption had been encrypted and then a third time.

angleton stopped talking about nosenko when oswald became the topic. he then firmly steered the conversation to orchids and kept it there during interviews at a number of locations.

:::

Epstein

"" Since Angleton's counterintelligence staff had the responsibility for evaluating information supplied by KGB defectors, I assumed that he would be in a position to clarify what Nosenko had been telling me about Oswald and the KGB. I had no idea then that Nosenko had been the subject of a bitter ten-year debate inside the CIA that had destroyed a half-dozen careers, and which helped precipitate the downfall of Angleton himself. Not knowing the mare's-nest of issues surrounding this case, I expected a simple answer when I asked him "Was there any problem with Nosenko's veracity?"

Angleton answered, with a thin smile, suggesting a deliberate understatement, "Truth is always complicated when its comes to defectors". He then added that the case was "still sensitive" and he could not discuss it. With that, he abruptly cut off the conversation about Nosenko, and moved on to a subject of which I had no understanding at all: Orchids. Ordering another bottle of vintage wine, he went into elaborate detail about the pollinating conditions for Dendrobian, Phalaenopsis, Cattyleas, Cymbidian and other tribes of orchids, especially their deceptive qualities. He explained it had not been the fittest but the most deceptive orchid that had survived. The perpetuation of most species of orchids depend on their ability to misrepresent themselves to insects. Having no food to offer the insects, they had to deceive them into landing on them and carrying their pollen to another orchid in the tribe. Orchids are too dispersed in nature to depend on the wind to carry their pollen.

To accomplish this deception, orchids use color, shape and odor to mimic something that attracts insects to their pods of pollen. Some orchids play on the sexual instincts of insects. The tricocerus orchid, for example, so perfectly mimics in three-dimensional the underside of a female fly, downs to the hairs and smell, that they trigger mating response from passing male flies. Seeing what he thinks is a female fly, the male fly swoops down on the orchid, and attempts to have sex with it-- a process called psuedo-copulation. In doing so, the motion causes the fly to hit the pollen pod, which attaches itself to his underside. The fly thus becomes an unwitting carrier. When the fly then passes another tricocerus orchid, and repeat the frustrating process, it pollinate that orchid.

It gradually became clear that he was not only talking about an insect being manipulated through deception but an intelligence service being similarly duped, seduced, provoked, blinded, lured down false trails and used by an enemy.

The last waitor was waiting for us to leave. It was almost 1 a.m. Angleton seemed drunk and I was disappointed. I had learned more than I ever wanted to know about botany but nothing about the subject at hand. As he got up to leave, I made a final try to get back to Nosenko. "But can Nosenko be believed about the assassination?" I asked.

He was silent for a long moment, obviously disappointed that I had not grasped the meaning of his orchid discourse. "I told you I could not discuss cases," he said. "But you might want to buy orchids for your greenhouse..."

"I don't have a greenhouse, but Nosenko..."

He cut me off. Why don't you come with me to Kensington Orchids next time I go."

The high humidity in Kensington Orchid house so fogged my glasses that I hardly see Angleton. He was examining a long, spiny orchid with a flash light. "See this oncidium orchid," he said, as I approached through the corridor of plants. "It has an almost exact replica of a bee's head on its petals." He meticulously traced the upside-down bee's head for me with his flashlight. "Here's the illusionary foe— the killer bee." Unable to distinguish the simulcrum from the real bee, the wasp is triggered to attack. When it plunges its stinger through the petal, the orchid's pollen pod adheres to it. The wasp then flies away and, if it sees another similar orchid, attacks again. But this time its stinger deposits the pollenate from the first orchid on the second. Angleton explains, " provocation is the means by which this species survives". Such deceptions work in nature, Angleton explains, because the deceived does not have the differentiate the real from the fake.

I asked if the CIA possesses that ability.

"It had counterintelligence," he said, speaking in the past tense.

"So did they know if Nosenko was real or fake."

Without answering, he proceeded on to a nearby odontoglossum orchid. He explained it blinded its carrier through deception. Its nectar odor lured moisquitos into its the coils of its fleshy tubes. When the moisquito pushes around a bend it runs into a spike of pollen pod, which jams into its eye. When it then back out of the tube, it is temporarily blinded. So it flies around until it smells a similar nectar and, again, following the trail of odor into a tube, it runs into another spike, which it willy-nilly pollinates with the pollen in its eye. "Did you come to buy orchids?" he asked.

"I came to Washingtonton for a second interview with Nosenko, tomorrow?" Angleton drove me back to the Madison hotel in his silver Mercedes. On the way back, he played a cassette of an Israel violenist he said he had had privately recorded, Evidently, Angleton's private world extentend to even his music. After several brandies in the Madison bar, he asked me what I planned to ask Nosenko.

"Any suggestions?" I replied.

He then dictated, with precision I had never heard before from anyone, thirteen questions. (see Missing Pieces) They contained names and aliases I had never heard before— Rumyanstev, General Rodin, xxxxov, Colonel Semonov and Corevan, for example, as well as KGB units like the 13th Department of the First Chief Directorate (which was rumored to handle assassinations abroad). I wote them down and asked if he could further elaborate.

"I can't do that. I would be revealing secrets. All you need to know-- and all I can tell you is that Nosenko never got his bona fides-- not while I was at the CIA." ""

::::

there are various interpretations of what Angleton was trying to get across. Obviously he was a highly intelligent, well read person capable of subtle deceit.

But assuming perhaps in this instance he is telling perhaps not who pulled the trigger but where, in which greenhouse to look? maybe just an other encryption?

John D.

edit:: using the 'triple encryption' as analogy, at the core is the conspiracy proper. For the conspiracy (assassins) to survive undetected it assumes the guise of the illusionary foe, the orchid. The wasp, the fly, and the mosquito are the diverse conspiracy theorists and any legitimate law enforcement attempts to nail the assassin. :: " provocation is the means by which this species (orchid, (assassins)) survives". "Such deceptions work in nature, Angleton explains, because the deceived does not have the (ability to) differentiate the real from the fake". These theorists and and law enforcement agencies are then manipulated to become the third, public layer. The conspiracy theory 'is' the conspiracy.

Because I think this is how it might have worked, I keep on trying to return to the early days, before the conspiracy got a life of its own. Those first few minutes even, half hour or so when rumours and reports were flying all over the place.

edit2:: so what use is this speculation? Assuming it's correct, I reason that to decode Angleton's orchid one needs to look past the 'smokescreen' to see the assassins. In other words, the assassins are what the smokescreen isn't. The smoke screen is the CIA, the Mob, the KGB, Oswald, Castro, anti-Castro, the FBI, JBS, KKK, Oil Barons, Johnson, Republicans, Democrats etc etc. These have in common a label, a grouping. Angleton alludes to a shifting, adapting quality when he describes different species of orchid. So also the 'smokescreen' shifts to accommodate various attacks by the fly, mosquito, wasp etc.

I wonder if the assassins are to be found not in any of these groups but rather in a grouping that may have members in these groups. Perhaps one of these is 'the good 'ole boys', the southern Gentry?

Some confederates even today do not accept defeat, the last battle of the civil war was after all won by the rebels in Texas. Reconstruction ensured a lingering bitterness. Guerilla war is after all covert. Maybe it was the latest in a hit and run strategy in a war continuing even today?? Pure speculation , of course.

Is this the battle flag of the south? Apparently these students are representative of a sentiment still strong?

'I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender nor retreat." WILLIAM B. TRAVIS

Edited July 11, 2005 by John Dolva

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Blurred? Fluffy?

Just about sums up you bunch of comedians.

EBC

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen wrote:

And you were right to remind me of my countries certain fate had you not fought with us in WW2. Steve.

We would not have done so, of course, had Joe Kennedy had his way!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen wrote:

And you were right to remind me of my countries certain fate had you not fought with us in WW2. Steve.

We would not have done so, of course, had Joe Kennedy had his way!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two things saved Britain from invasion in 1942, American troups, and operation barbarossa. Thankfully Hitler failed to learn from Napoleon. Of course keeping the Brits under Nazi occupation would have been anoyher thing again.

[Tim Gratz]

How, by the way, does "pure speculation" differ from "speculation"?

Please, don't speculate (purely or otherwise) if you chose to answer this question!

[John Dolva]

How, by the way, does "pure speculation" differ from "speculation"?

Please, don't speculate (purely or otherwise) if you chose to answer this question!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm...dunno Tim, now that you point it out the best I can come up with at the moment is a difference between flights of fancy, incomplete and possibly totally unsupported thoughts, speculation perhaps is a hypothesis based on opinion derived from something more substantial. In a brainstorming environment it's not necessary to present correct supported logues, but rather off the cuff hopefully thought provoking statements that may or may not yield relevant results.

John D.

....

edit:: having said that, well argued researched arguments are of course essential in such a speculative environment, many of the posts in here seem to me to be quite informed , others, well ... er 'fluffy' is a good word. To me here, that in itself is not important.

It brings to mind something I read recently about truth, and I believe that culturally the chinese for example are masters of this, often it is what is not said that is the message. It might have been in reading up on Angleton that I came across that, he certainly seems like a remarkable character. I can't help thinking he was a smug intellectual with a great deal of contempt for the world in general, I wonder how driven he was in trying to live down his debacle re Philby? Maybe the orchid thingy is an attempt to atone, perhaps yet further deceit. I get the impression though that he had a consistent credo, not to be mistaken for 'honesty'.

Edited July 11, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Tim, BtW, I gather you are sympathetic of Angleton, I wonder what your take on his Orchid analogy might be, I understand John suggests Oswald might be the fly.

John

[Tim Gratz]

Interesting post, John.

Where is William Safire now that we need him?

[Tim Gratz]

I'm even sympathetic to William Harvey! If my scenario is right, it was Desmond Fitzgerald who cost JFK his life by accepting Castro's "dangle" of Cubela.

Angleton and Harvey knew better than to trust Cubela.

That being said, I understand one could posit a scenario that Harvey was involved in the assassination, based on: (a) his hatred of the Kennedys; and ( his association with Rosselli. Michael Kurtz thinks that Castro AND Harvey were both involved! If CIA agents were involved, I would think Morales and/or Robertson would be more likely candidates than Harvey.

I'll write more on James Jesus later. Most journalists who dealt with him ended up believing him (e.g. Epstein and Trento).

Edited July 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

How, by the way, does "pure speculation" differ from "speculation"?

Please, don't speculate (purely or otherwise) if you chose to answer this question!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The purity of the speculation is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mark Stapleton]

Stephen wrote:

And you were right to remind me of my countries certain fate had you not fought with us in WW2. Steve.

We would not have done so, of course, had Joe Kennedy had his way!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two things saved Britain from invasion in 1942, American troups, and operation barbarossa. Thankfully Hitler failed to learn from Napoleon. Of course keeping the Brits under Nazi occupation would have been anoyher thing again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but if the Brits had fallen under German control your cricket team might now display more discipline. Never considered that, did you?

[John Dolva]

why fake the zfilm?

I don't know. perhaps someone could tell me?

I've read statements like ' if it can be shown to be fake then as it indicates a rear shot it would support a conspiracy.' As I don't see it indicating a rear head shot I don't agree with that statement. if the frame rate is faulty and /or parts are mutilated/missing then it would indicate attempts to cover up something, perhaps involvement of someone appearing in the film?(or as a result of mutilation , not appearing?) but still it would seem to me to be a pretty dodgy endeavour as there are so many other images available, as well as (supposedly) the original. anyway, I'm open to the idea of it being a fake, and I'm open to the idea of it being wholly genuine. whatever, any attempt to find out is worthwhile in my opinion. Gary? send me frame 313 please.

for my purposes well meaning attempts to deblur, distortion correct, clean up,stabilise or in any way take the available data further away from the raw original may be one way the original has been 'mutilated'/'faked'. For other purposes it can be helpful. Still, its whats available.

Edited July 12, 2005 by John Dolva

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen wrote:

And you were right to remind me of my countries certain fate had you not fought with us in WW2. Steve.

We would not have done so, of course, had Joe Kennedy had his way!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two things saved Britain from invasion in 1942, American troups, and operation barbarossa. Thankfully Hitler failed to learn from Napoleon. Of course keeping the Brits under Nazi occupation would have been anoyher thing again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but if the Brits had fallen under German control your cricket team might now display more discipline. Never considered that, did you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sheesh, first James Richards has a go, now Mark, you lads better hope the aussies win or retribution will be mine sayeth Lords pavillion

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I'll write more on James Jesus later.  Most journalists who dealt with him ended up believing him (e.g. Epstein and Trento).

Gee, I must have been absent when this straw poll was taken of journalists who dealt with Angleton.  Where can one learn more about this, and which journalists were included in the voting process?

Seems to me, one might profit from reading David Wise, David Martin, Dick Russell, Tom Mangold, Loftus & Aarons and a dozen others before professing any conclusions about what "most journalists" determined about Angleton.  Doing so will illustrate that there is no such consensus, Tim's skewed assertions notwithstanding.  If anything, Shanet's observations are closer to the truth of the matter.

More to the point, still, however: one might also take into account the observations of those CIA careerists who dealt daily with Angleton professionally.  They are considerably less kind in their characterizations than Epstein and Trento.  Then again, Epstein was essentially Angleton's ghost-writer for fictions Angleton wished disseminated ["Legend" indeed.]  And Trento, as we know, was also selected by Angleton to help float the putative "Hunt" memo.  Angleton told Trento that Hunt had been dispatched to Dallas for 11/22/63 by a KGB mole within CIA.  How quaint.  Too bad Angleton never found any such mole in his decades of searching.

Why do you cite only those who had a rather fawning personal relationship with Angleton?  Once again, Tim, you seem intent upon making your case by selectively picking only that which bolsters it, while ignoring substantial data that undermine your conclusions.  It is a recurring tic.  Why is that, do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Stapleton]

Steve,

Sounds like you're saying your prayers already.