Tim Gratz: Evidence Needed

[Tim Carroll]

The movie, Seven Days In May, has a great scene in which the President makes the point to the coup general that if the Soviets understood America to have been militarily overthrown, a nuclear conflict would be imminent. Game Theory.

I haven't seen that film yet but I've heard about it and I know it's a classic. I'll try to rent the DVD today.... Another thought: maybe the U.S. WAS overthrown militarily (as in the sense of a coup organized by Major General Gordon Lansdale (ret.)) on 11/22/63....

Don't rent the remake; the original with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas was actually filmed in the White House as a result of JFK's own encouragement that the movie be made as a warning to the republic. He said: "It's possible. It could happen in this country, but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness." If there were a second Bay of Pigs, the military would begin to feel it their patriotic obligation to preserve the nation. "Then, if there were a third Bay of Pigs, it could happen.... But it won't happen on my watch."

Tim

[Gerry Hemming]

The movie, Seven Days In May, has a great scene in which the President makes the point to the coup general that if the Soviets understood America to have been militarily overthrown, a nuclear conflict would be imminent. Game Theory.

I haven't seen that film yet but I've heard about it and I know it's a classic. I'll try to rent the DVD today.... Another thought: maybe the U.S. WAS overthrown militarily (as in the sense of a coup organized by Major General Gordon Lansdale (ret.)) on 11/22/63....

Don't rent the remake; the original with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas was actually filmed in the White House as a result of JFK's own encouragement that the movie be made as a warning to the republic. He said: "It's possible. It could happen in this country, but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness." If there were a second Bay of Pigs, the military would begin to feel it their patriotic obligation to preserve the nation. "Then, if there were a third Bay of Pigs, it could happen.... But it won't happen on my watch."

Tim

Tim:

I used to piss Dickey Chappelle off regularly by making reference to her "real-boss", you know: General "gordon Lonsdale"!! On schedule she would retort: "...Thats GEN. EDWARD LANSDALE you asshole...and he is NOT my boss..don't you know he was a Limey traitor!! "...Your boss was WHAT ??..." [as I ran out of the room].

Enjoyed the "Internet xxxxx" thesis -- Wow !! What fertile ground we have to plow here on the Edu/Forum.

OOPs !! The article stated that it is WE old-stuck-in-the-mud members who xxxxx against the "NEWBIES ??"

Somebody got it twisted around: Alleging that the FNG [who has a "Love-Hate" going with "Big Jim"] is the xxxxx despite being a "newbie" ?? Send in Oliver and Joan, and lets get this "newbie" corrected to the straight-and-narrow-path.

O.K. !! Would ALL Trolls immediately revise their "Bios" to reflect their status -- that indeed they are secret agent Trolls.

Come on now, don't be crying 1st, 5th & 13th Amendments, start "fessing-up" We know who you are. maybe you haf freunds oder familie in Cherminy -- vee know how to makes you talk -- Sprache yetzt, dumslechten !!

Back to Oprah.

GPH

____________________________

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

John, what in the world good would it do?

Gus Russo does not claim that Castro did it but he does not exclude the possibility and his book is replete with evidence re Castro's motive and possible DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.

Oh? When did they get downgraded to "possible" DGI agents in Dealey Plaza? You've not used such qualifiers in the past. And if Russo's own evidence didn't convince him that Castro did it, how can you - who have added nothing - spin it to achieve a conclusion that even Russo - no pal of Fidel's - refrained from accepting, let alone insisting was persuasive and conclusive, as you do here daily? Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?

I cannot post his entire book here. I can only encourage members to read it. But many, like Dawn, exclude the possibility that Castro did it and refuse to read Russo's book.

Similar situation exists with Trento's book.

If people want to seriously evaluate the evidence of Cuban involvement, they should read Russo's book, Trento's book and Kurtz's book. I do not claim to have substantial evidence other than those sources.

That's only because you've never bothered to acquaint yourself with the so-called evidence that you nevertheless - surprise surprise - insist is convincing.

well, let me amend that. I also believe Trento's book because I think Angleton was correct about many things, including the Nosenko affair. Further evidence would be that Richard Nagell claimed that the GRU had pre-knowledge of the upcoming assassination.

Foreknowledge of an event and participation in same are not the same thing. Just a little subtle distinction that any law student would know, but our favourite in-house disbarred lawyer likes to gloss over as though it is unimportant.

Everyone ought to know that I try to read just about everything I can about the assassination and I do not exclude any scenario provided there is some evidence to suggest it.

That's not the complaint levelled against you here. It is the opposite: you accept a bogus scenario in the absence of serious evidence; what little so-called evidence that does exist for it - all of it unconfirmed and unverified or unverifiable - all comes from a prime suspect in the crime; and despite these two central and self-evident deficiencies, you insist that those who don't follow you down this primrose path are being unfair in not granting equal consideration to this CIA-promulgated bushwah.

Anyone who is sincere in wanting to solve the assassination ought to be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, and that would then include reading Russo, Trento and Kurtz. It is fine if they read the books with an open mind and then decide to reject them. But I don't think anyone can state he or she is willing to follow the evidence and then refuse to read those books.

Consider the evidence of DGI agents in Dealey Plaza. Robert Charles-Dunne writes off all such evidence solely because it is contained in CIA reports.

Incorrect, as usual. What I hold out as suspicious - because it originates with a prime suspect in the assassination - is any unconfirmed, uncorroborated, blind-sourced CIA account that has no substantiation from other sources that are not on the list of suspects.

You have alluded to much in the way of peculiar hypothetical travel by various Cubans. Have you managed to locate anything from INS, the State Department, Texas Rangers or the Boy Scouts of America that confirms these postulated travels? No. No effort expended equals nothing achieved. Which leaves us only with the organization which originated the report. Given the horrific track-record of CIA lying to, misleading and double-dealing the citizenry which pays for it, and the two chambers of Congress to which it is theoretically accountable, you will forgive me if I don't sing hosannahs because somebody within the bowels of a suspect organization generated something which isn't confirmed or confirmable. I'm well past the point of being fed up with being suckered by CIA. You are not. That is the chasm that divides us.

One report came from the aunt of one of the agents, so Robert then argued the aunt was not a good source. I guess Robert would only believe it if the report included statements by both of the Cuban's parents and each of his siblings, and then only after each family member had undergone a polygraph examination.

This is a fabrication of your own, and bears no resemblance to what I've stated, as is known by those who have followed our lunge and parry. For a one-time lawyer, you certainly don't seem to understand much about the way the criminal justice system works. A witness must be called to offer testimony, must swear that the testimony is true, and is then subjected to cross-examination and re-direct, where warranted. Once a witness has offered that, and once a judge and/or jury have heard all the conflicting evidence from all such witnesses, the preponderance of the evidence leads to a judgement based upon which of the conflicting witnesses is deemed most credible.

For reasons that are not lost on the rest of us, you find it advisable to dispense with such formalities, and decide to accept anecdotal rumour-mongering from CIA and its various apparatchiks. As a result, you simply cleave to your own preconceived notion of what transpired, and any morsels that tend to bolster your baseless conclusion are seized as though of holy writ, irrespective of how tainted the source, or how faithless the CIA factotum who was its conduit. In other words, this crapola plays to your own prejudice, so the minor matter of whether or not it is true becomes irrelevant to you. After all, CIA wouldn't lie to you, would it? Never mind that it did so to the Warren Commission, and the HSCA, or that its nominal brains Richard Helms was found guilty of perjury to Congress. These nettlesome little details mustn't detract from whether or not the hypothetical Miguelito's hypothetical aunt thought him capable of violence, and whether or not he had hypothetical cash in pocket upon his hypothetical return to Havana.

Most frightening of all, you haven't ever seen any of what so-called "evidence" you insist should be sufficient to convince us. You advocate on behalf of a party whose veracity is - based upon past performance - doubtful at best, pushing so-called "evidence" you've never seen let alone assayed for probative value, and then whinge on-and-on like an hysterical nancyboy when others demur, as though it is their fault that your peddling of xxxxe dressed up as national security information fails to convince. Little wonder you don't practice law any longer. Care to share with us what act of omission or commission got you disbarred? Would congenital prejudice and gullibility be sufficient? Perhaps the Wisconsin Supreme Court would be prepared to disclose the cause of your being struck from the bar if we asked.

That is why I am frustrated. Stu Wexler once posted that the possibility of Cuban involvement should not be excluded without a close analysis of the evidence. But few here seem willing to seriously consider the evidence that points to possible Cuban involvement.

What's particularly frustrating for the rest of us is when the ill-informed and under-analytical presume to instruct others on what is convincing evidence, when they have yet to actually cop eyes on it themselves. Stu Wexler was right to conclude that Cuban involvement shouldn't be excluded without examining the evidence. When do you plan to acquaint yourself with the "evidence" you pimp here? Ever? Or will you simply continue posting patchwork quilts of random book quotes from agenda-driven authors citing questionable or unverifiable CIA sources as though that suffices? Dear boy, you used to be a joke. Then, at least you were funny. Now you're just sad.

Well I have vented my frustrations. That being said I will be glad to attempt to reformulate my arguments on this thread.

No need to reformulate anything. Why not simply provide what you've long promised, but have yet to deliver? You might start by typing up the downloaded data that you claimed in April would demonstrate Castro planned to blow up NYC. I've lost count of the number of times I requested that you live up to your promise, though others have taken up the chant. I had grudgingly backed off of those requests for some months now, to allow for weather-related problems you no doubt endured.

Recently, however, you haughtily suggested that others should simply access the data for themselves, as though you had never made the promise and hence had no obligation to provide what you had promised. How can you, in good conscience, pull such an unethical bait-and-switch tactic and then plead that the fault lies in others here who just don't understand the evidence, or are unwilling to consider contrary data? Why not simply deliver on your own promise? Or is it too much to expect that a man who wishes to be thought a gentleman behave like one?

Thank you, John.l

[Gerry Hemming]

Gerry,

It seems to me that what you are saying could be the reason Johnson as president vetoed the "blame it on Castro" part of the JFK plot. I believe that Johnson was in on, or had foreknowledge of, the assassination, knew that Castro didn't do it, and didn't want the problems that blaming it on Castro would create.

The one big problem for Johnson (how to become president and stay out of prison) had been taken care of. I'm sure it was with relief that he promptly opted for the lone-nut scenario, against the wishes of CIA and military folks whom he figured he could pacify by giving them (and his fat-cat Texas friends) the Vietnam War.

Ron

-----------------------------

Ron:

NO ! That is NOT what I'm saying !! Now you are borderline mimicking what too many over eager scribblers have "quoted" me as "saying, stating, alleging, swearing, farting and mumbling". Some of this began with "novice" wannabe authors who falsely wrote that: "...GPH states that the tall tramp is Miami JBS

member Ted Slack...yadda...yadda.."! Where in fact, as was my routine response to silly-xxxx amateurs [some of whom have since matured greatly], to wit: "...If you properly phrase your question in the form --

Does the tall tramp "RESEMBLE IN ANY PHYSICAL WAY" somebody you have known, encountered, or been told about"; then I will respond that the tall tramp resembles (deleted); (deleted); (deleted); but ONLY has similar "facial" character indicators close to that of Ted Slack...but I think that this guy is much taller than Ted. The only indicative comparison is the known length of the riot shotguns carried by the cops, that is: when measured against leg and upper torso parts. Other than that, I haven't the foggiest as to who this "hobo" might be -- but if he actually was part of a professional shooter support team, then you wouldn't be looking at photos of tramps -- but photos of the dead cops who attempted to arrest/detain said operators. The standard [sOP] being, that backup security shooters would have taken out the dumbxxxx cops, the tramps, or ALL !!

This is what I later advised Oliver Stone on when he accepted my theory that the alleged "E. Howard Hunt" tramp [per the psycho Khazar, et al.] might have been concealing a handie/talkie [with earpiece] inside his "wino" paper bag bottle holder. This tramp was played by an old Oliver Stone family friend and ex-CIA assassin

[siragusa Team] Ronald Von Klaussen -- known in the Guat/BOP camps as "El Tigre". RVK [we would only give Ron's initials to Oliver at the West End Marketplace briefing upon his querying as to who was "El Tigre".

Ron came and went with the 1st instructor cadre which was bossed by old Lansdale crony: Filipino Colonel Napoleon D. Valeriano [a/k/a "Col. Vallejo"]. a WWII anti-Jap guerrilla leader and one of Ramon magsaysay's top HUK [Hukbalahap - "Anti-Jap Army Fighters, etc."] hunter/killers. The BA2506 Cubans nick named them "The Blackhawks" -- after the 1950s comic strip characters, who while being of diverse ethnic backgrounds (including an F5U1N Chinese fighter/bomber pilot), saved the world from "evil-doers" on a weekly basis.

How stupid we felt [later that very same day] when RVK appeared alongside Stone, and they both chuckled that they had been working together for many years.

Don't anguish, even Gratz has fallen into that "cub reporter trap" of editing/shortening/rearranging answers to: "...GPH claims, states, alleges, reports, fatulates, mumbles..that -- It was Cock Robin who did it, and later was suicided.."!! Then, like Gratz -- they whine that: My Editor dood it, or My Editor made me do it.

That feeble trick always makes for a more sensational tabloid article !!

As to LBJ foreknowledge -- anything is possible, but I would hesitate to "Barr" him without more grand jury level evidence. [That reminds me. On another thread, lawyer Pepper alleges that he has "proof positive" that some "auto-worker ??" -- whose home he regularly stalks, is the "real" Raoul/Raul, not REJ. Well, Mr. Perry Mason, why is it you haven't attempted to prosecute said schemer ??!! As I recall, under Tennessee

Law, you (as an attorney or private citizen) have the right & privilege of submitting a "Suggestion of Presentment" to the Chief Judge in Memphis; thus bypassing the prosecutor's office totally, and thereafter call the grand jury into chambers, and then: either you, or counsel(s) of your choice [per court approval as qualified] may seek to obtain a "True Bill"!! Thereupon, you may continue to serve as prosecuting attorney in the criminal courts against this "guilty-son-of-a-bitch"!!

This is why so many "ham sandwiches" get indicted??!! This procedure goes back 300+ years in the English Common Law [which TN has adopted both "specifically & generally" -- see: Sutherland - Statutes & statutory Construction] where the King's subjects (usually "Lords"] ran their own private justice system, and filled the infamous debtor's prisons, and the floating "Gaols" on the Thames [which were styled as "The Hulks"].

Of course these procedures were abolished after the outcries against "Private Appeals" (prosecutions in the 1st instance) conducted before "Coroners" [who had comity with the King's Bench] and the "framing" of innocents using the doctrine of "Common Law Approvement". This is how the KB/QB apparatus was substituted for the rantings of the "Approvers", into the quasi-rantings of the new "Prosecutors" !!

The biggest improvement in the UK came with the early 1700s "Transportation Act" -- which exiled debtors, slaves, and Ind/servants to the "American Colonies". However, some 'fussing-about" by certain upstart & disloyal [to H.R.H. Geo. III] ruffians during 1775; and thus forceing the "transportation" to be shifted to Norfolk Island, Australia, and New Zealand.

Don't anguish "Dr. Pepper" [i see you have a J.D.], just pop the top and sit back with Gratz -- knowing that I handled more cases every year than both of you could do together in a lifetime !!

As for Joannides, Martino, Hendrix, et al. -- these were spontaneous "knee-jerk" [and NOT authorized] attempts to "turn-the-tide" against Fidel [sua sponte in Dr. Pepper's legal parlance] and unilaterally "strike-a-blow-for-Cuban-freedom" !!

As for the phony MIC/LBJ/Bell choppers/Ibn Saud/Alfred E. Neuman, et al. murder motives -- the heartful lustings (a-la Carter) for anticipated grandiose profits from Vietnam [Fed. Reserve, Exec. Order 15,731, & other Montana Bo Gritz Militia credos]; there were minimal "advisor's" [under JFK's limited rules of engagement] in-country at the time, and as Krulak has frequently stated: JFK had already approved plans for forcing Ngo (Diem) to quit encouraging "Budhist Bar-B-Qs" and accept several thousand more SF "counter-insurgency" experts.

[COINS being the new fad religion of the Kennedys, even before the O.D.A.(Green Beret "A" Team) demos at Hickory Hill !!

Youse godda da proofs enuff for da gran' jewries bro' -- if NOT, faggeddaboutit.

Too early for Oprah -- back to posting, wouldn't want the "village Idiot" [or his punkrocker groupies -- "Da 3 Stooges"] to think that this "prime suspect in the assassination" is asleep at the wheel..er..keyboard !!

GPH

_______________________________

[Ron Ecker]

Gerry,

It seems to me that what you are saying could be the reason Johnson as president vetoed the "blame it on Castro" part of the JFK plot. I believe that Johnson was in on, or had foreknowledge of, the assassination, knew that Castro didn't do it, and didn't want the problems that blaming it on Castro would create.

The one big problem for Johnson (how to become president and stay out of prison) had been taken care of. I'm sure it was with relief that he promptly opted for the lone-nut scenario, against the wishes of CIA and military folks whom he figured he could pacify by giving them (and his fat-cat Texas friends) the Vietnam War.

Ron

-----------------------------

Ron:

NO ! That is NOT what I'm saying !! Now you are borderline mimicking what too many over eager scribblers have "quoted" me as "saying, stating, alleging, swearing, farting and mumbling".

I understood you to say that Johnson knew there were still nuclear weapons in Cuba. I suggested that if that is true, that may be why Johnson wanted to leave Castro alone. How did this misquote you?

Edited November 6, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Gerry Hemming]

Gerry,

It seems to me that what you are saying could be the reason Johnson as president vetoed the "blame it on Castro" part of the JFK plot. I believe that Johnson was in on, or had foreknowledge of, the assassination, knew that Castro didn't do it, and didn't want the problems that blaming it on Castro would create.

The one big problem for Johnson (how to become president and stay out of prison) had been taken care of. I'm sure it was with relief that he promptly opted for the lone-nut scenario, against the wishes of CIA and military folks whom he figured he could pacify by giving them (and his fat-cat Texas friends) the Vietnam War.

Ron

-----------------------------

Ron:

NO ! That is NOT what I'm saying !! Now you are borderline mimicking what too many over eager scribblers have "quoted" me as "saying, stating, alleging, swearing, farting and mumbling".

I understood you to say that Johnson knew there were still nuclear weapons in Cuba. I suggested that if that is true, that may be why Johnson wanted to leave Castro alone. How did this misquote you?

------------------------------

Ron:

"Borderline mimicking" is the operative statement. Your merging of your "belief" that LBJ "knew" [for certain?] that a nuke threat remained with Cuba [solo] within the same paragraph, congruent with your inculpations of guilt, foreknowledge, acquiesence, etc. would cause the reader to believe that I had made an identical statement or this was a paraphrasing of same. Not starting a new paragraph with an "however" [for example] would have indicated that your "quote" was in agreement, but with a caveated addendum or correction.

I failed English in high school [1st year], so I shouldn't be heard to bitch too loudly !!

Permit me to restate: That LBJ knew for certain ??, and "Whiz-kid" MacNamara didn't "know for certain" as to nukes armed and ready, or stored, or deactivated -- I've not spoken with anyone who claims that LBJ had the "perfect" inside Intel scoop. In Havana, 1992, "Slack-Mac" stated that his belief during 1962, and until the Soviet statements during his meetings, believed that the nukes had never arrived "inside" Cuba.

The singular evidence is that LBJ's administration took specific measures in "attempts" to verify absence or presence of nukes, and their delivery capabilities. The Thermo-nukes were wired for delivery ONLY by the Iluyshins being reassembled at the air base which I had commanded until mid-1960. [b.A.M. San Julian, Pinar del Rio Province [western], Cuba. The T/Nukes could NOT be launched by IRBMs, MRBMs, submarines, or ships. Part of the modules required for the prepping, arming, targeting, and launching the T/Nukes were copies of our AN/ARN-21 Navigation/Prepping/Guidance/Delivery computer [transisterized].

The PIC ["Pilot-in-Command"] and the Bombardier would make the ultimate decision of the weapons delivery method , e.g.: "Over-the-Shoulder" or "Forward Pitch" [i'll skip the Mil/terms for same].

The options would have been:

[1] If targeting Washinton, D.C., NYC, etc. -- the distances needed to be flown would have precluded "slipping-under-the-radar while penetrating the A.D.I.Z. ["Air Defense Identification Zone"] which began at "24 North Latitude" & wrapped around Florida and up the east coast at an average of 30 miles offshore; because this low altitude flight would have consumed all of their fuel by Richmond, Virginia.

Therefore, the bombers would have been forced to "sneak-under" till Georgia, and thereafter pose as a commercial cargo or passenger jet flight at above 20,000 feet msl till target IP. Jets are designed to fly at high altitudes. "Down-on-the-deck" usually burns 10 times the fuel rate, which means that fuel cells would have had to be installed inside the bomb bays to even get close.

Op/Sec would have required that a decoy aircraft launch from within Georgia and coordinated with the bombers ETAs. [a light twin with large radar reflectors onboard, plus ECM gear -- to impersonate a medium commercial bird when they popped up on FAA and/or NORAD radar screens south of Atlanta] ALL aircraft cruising above flight level 20 circa 1962 would have to be on an FAA approved IFR "Flight Plan" [it is 12,000 ft. now]

It would have been highly irregular for a large jet to file the flight plan in the air as is done by light aircraft, but filing under VFR ONLY ["Visual Flight Rules"] -- and this is permitted because many small airplanes launch from airports without control towers or telephones, or farmer's fields. [oftentimes the VFR pilot will telephone from home and be permitted to takeoff with a specified "time-window", or file no flight whatsoever. This is not the case with Jets]

[2] Targeting the B-47 SAC bases at McDill AFB [Tampa] and Homestead AFB [Miami] would NOT have been a decapitating blow, but would have permitted low-level surprise and short-range attacks;

[3] The preferred routing for the eastern seaboard would have been a decoy Int' flight plan via Bermuda,

and after passing D.C. or NYC; doubling back for a low-level "over-the-shoulder" or "forward-pitch" delivery maneuver. Because all of the FAA/NORAD radars would have been "fried" by EMP, the crews could continue on to secure landing sites in Canada. This would avoid a "one-way-Kamikaze" mission crew state of mind; which might have encouraged their aborting the operations before weapons delivery IP;

[4] The high altitude dropping requires the bomber to remain within the "Victor Airways" [VOR highways in the sky] and be subjected to the FAA rules requiring the radio reporting of "station passage" and ETAs of "Next Waypoint". Moreover, even at high altitude the bombers dropping T/Nukes would have suffered severe EMP "frying" and radiation, as the Soviets had not then perfected "Iron-Clad" models; and,

[5] High altitude dropping might have risked the above-mententioned aborting. Since their bomb-bays were not pressurized, the weapons would have been subjected to below freezing temperatures above 15,000 feet msl [temperate zone freezing level]; so the AN/ARN-12- type module incorporates such things as "Guidance Fin De-frosters" warming up the weapon some time before dropping. The T/Nukes had J/DAM type guidance fins, and if frozen -- would go astray.

"Over-the-shoulder" means a manuver where the bomber passes abeam of the target, executes a computer controlled "inside loop" headed back towards the target, and at a critical point the computer releases the weapon, and the bomber completes the loop back to "on-the-deck" and escapes while being shielded from EMP by surrounding terrain features.

"Forward Pitching" requires the bomber to start the loop short of the target, and at the critical moment, the weapon is released -- and the bomber returns via the approach route, but "on-the-deck" once again.

LBJ's only option was to continue the installation of the "Hawk" anti-aircraft missile batteries all over the U.S., and since these AAA [sAM type] missiles had similar abilities as the later Patriots; it was expected that incoming warhead capsules could be at least be "fried" before descending to detonation altitudes.

Regardless of whether he even commanded the DP shooters [by Dick Tracy "wrist-radio" mayhaps??] from his very own vehicle, he still had to deal with the Cuban Nuke threat in the near term.

Why the statement that: "Most active and EFFECTIVE Cuban exile raider groups were being 'shut-down' or 'thwarted' by JFK/RFK -- is total horse-xxxx -- is soon to follow !!

"Patrick did it !!" -- Common refrain heard in Florida during 1961 thru 1967.

GPH

____________________________

[Terry Mauro]

Gerry,

It seems to me that what you are saying could be the reason Johnson as president vetoed the "blame it on Castro" part of the JFK plot. I believe that Johnson was in on, or had foreknowledge of, the assassination, knew that Castro didn't do it, and didn't want the problems that blaming it on Castro would create.

The one big problem for Johnson (how to become president and stay out of prison) had been taken care of. I'm sure it was with relief that he promptly opted for the lone-nut scenario, against the wishes of CIA and military folks whom he figured he could pacify by giving them (and his fat-cat Texas friends) the Vietnam War.

Ron

-----------------------------

Ron:

NO ! That is NOT what I'm saying !! Now you are borderline mimicking what too many over eager scribblers have "quoted" me as "saying, stating, alleging, swearing, farting and mumbling".

I understood you to say that Johnson knew there were still nuclear weapons in Cuba. I suggested that if that is true, that may be why Johnson wanted to leave Castro alone. How did this misquote you?

------------------------------

Ron:

"Borderline mimicking" is the operative statement. Your merging of your "belief" that LBJ "knew" [for certain?] that a nuke threat remained with Cuba [solo] within the same paragraph, congruent with your inculpations of guilt, foreknowledge, acquiesence, etc. would cause the reader to believe that I had made an identical statement or this was a paraphrasing of same. Not starting a new paragraph with an "however" [for example] would have indicated that your "quote" was in agreement, but with a caveated addendum or correction.

I failed English in high school [1st year], so I shouldn't be heard to bitch too loudly !!

Permit me to restate: That LBJ knew for certain ??, and "Whiz-kid" MacNamara didn't "know for certain" as to nukes armed and ready, or stored, or deactivated -- I've not spoken with anyone who claims that LBJ had the "perfect" inside Intel scoop. In Havana, 1992, "Slack-Mac" stated that his belief during 1962, and until the Soviet statements during his meetings, believed that the nukes had never arrived "inside" Cuba.

The singular evidence is that LBJ's administration took specific measures in "attempts" to verify absence or presence of nukes, and their delivery capabilities. The Thermo-nukes were wired for delivery ONLY by the Iluyshins being reassembled at the air base which I had commanded until mid-1960. [b.A.M. San Julian, Pinar del Rio Province [western], Cuba. The T/Nukes could NOT be launched by IRBMs, MRBMs, submarines, or ships. Part of the modules required for the prepping, arming, targeting, and launching the T/Nukes were copies of our AN/ARN-21 Navigation/Prepping/Guidance/Delivery computer [transisterized].

The PIC ["Pilot-in-Command"] and the Bombardier would make the ultimate decision of the weapons delivery method , e.g.: "Over-the-Shoulder" or "Forward Pitch" [i'll skip the Mil/terms for same].

The options would have been:

[1] If targeting Washinton, D.C., NYC, etc. -- the distances needed to be flown would have precluded "slipping-under-the-radar while penetrating the A.D.I.Z. ["Air Defense Identification Zone"] which began at "24 North Latitude" & wrapped around Florida and up the east coast at an average of 30 miles offshore; because this low altitude flight would have consumed all of their fuel by Richmond, Virginia.

Therefore, the bombers would have been forced to "sneak-under" till Georgia, and thereafter pose as a commercial cargo or passenger jet flight at above 20,000 feet msl till target IP. Jets are designed to fly at high altitudes. "Down-on-the-deck" usually burns 10 times the fuel rate, which means that fuel cells would have had to be installed inside the bomb bays to even get close.

Op/Sec would have required that a decoy aircraft launch from within Georgia and coordinated with the bombers ETAs. [a light twin with large radar reflectors onboard, plus ECM gear -- to impersonate a medium commercial bird when they popped up on FAA and/or NORAD radar screens south of Atlanta] ALL aircraft cruising above flight level 20 circa 1962 would have to be on an FAA approved IFR "Flight Plan" [it is 12,000 ft. now]

It would have been highly irregular for a large jet to file the flight plan in the air as is done by light aircraft, but filing under VFR ONLY ["Visual Flight Rules"] -- and this is permitted because many small airplanes launch from airports without control towers or telephones, or farmer's fields. [oftentimes the VFR pilot will telephone from home and be permitted to takeoff with a specified "time-window", or file no flight whatsoever. This is not the case with Jets]

[2] Targeting the B-47 SAC bases at McDill AFB [Tampa] and Homestead AFB [Miami] would NOT have been a decapitating blow, but would have permitted low-level surprise and short-range attacks;

[3] The preferred routing for the eastern seaboard would have been a decoy Int' flight plan via Bermuda,

and after passing D.C. or NYC; doubling back for a low-level "over-the-shoulder" or "forward-pitch" delivery maneuver. Because all of the FAA/NORAD radars would have been "fried" by EMP, the crews could continue on to secure landing sites in Canada. This would avoid a "one-way-Kamikaze" mission crew state of mind; which might have encouraged their aborting the operations before weapons delivery IP;

[4] The high altitude dropping requires the bomber to remain within the "Victor Airways" [VOR highways in the sky] and be subjected to the FAA rules requiring the radio reporting of "station passage" and ETAs of "Next Waypoint". Moreover, even at high altitude the bombers dropping T/Nukes would have suffered severe EMP "frying" and radiation, as the Soviets had not then perfected "Iron-Clad" models; and,

[5] High altitude dropping might have risked the above-mententioned aborting. Since their bomb-bays were not pressurized, the weapons would have been subjected to below freezing temperatures above 15,000 feet msl [temperate zone freezing level]; so the AN/ARN-12- type module incorporates such things as "Guidance Fin De-frosters" warming up the weapon some time before dropping. The T/Nukes had J/DAM type guidance fins, and if frozen -- would go astray.

"Over-the-shoulder" means a manuver where the bomber passes abeam of the target, executes a computer controlled "inside loop" headed back towards the target, and at a critical point the computer releases the weapon, and the bomber completes the loop back to "on-the-deck" and escapes while being shielded from EMP by surrounding terrain features.

"Forward Pitching" requires the bomber to start the loop short of the target, and at the critical moment, the weapon is released -- and the bomber returns via the approach route, but "on-the-deck" once again.

LBJ's only option was to continue the installation of the "Hawk" anti-aircraft missile batteries all over the U.S., and since these AAA [sAM type] missiles had similar abilities as the later Patriots; it was expected that incoming warhead capsules could be at least be "fried" before descending to detonation altitudes.

Regardless of whether he even commanded the DP shooters [by Dick Tracy "wrist-radio" mayhaps??] from his very own vehicle, he still had to deal with the Cuban Nuke threat in the near term.

Why the statement that: "Most active and EFFECTIVE Cuban exile raider groups were being 'shut-down' or 'thwarted' by JFK/RFK -- is total horse-xxxx -- is soon to follow !!

"Patrick did it !!" -- Common refrain heard in Florida during 1961 thru 1967.

GPH

____________________________

*********************************************************************

"Patrick did it !!" -- Common refrain heard in Florida during 1961 thru 1967.

GPH

Yeah, right. And, with a little help from his friends.

[Tim Carroll]

When RFK's phone logs were released (in the nineties I believe) they revealed a single phone call between RFK and Fitzgerald in the six month period preceding the assassination.

Quote source please...while it's certainly possible, it sounds like one of those old exile wive's tales, kinda like Castro trying to blow up Manhattan.

Pat, the phone call between Fitzgerald and RFK is a matter of public record. I found it in Russo's book.

It should be a simple matter to provide the source for the date of the "single phone call between RFK and FitzGerald in the six month period preceding the assassination." What is Russo's specifically cited source? Who initiated the call? Was the date the same as was asserted here months ago, October 11th? What is the source for the assertion that the RFK-FitzGerald call occurred the same day the CIA received the request from Cubela for a personal meeting with RFK?

Tim

[William Kelly]

I have noticed that several threads on the Forum have included Tim Gratz making statements that he claims he has evidence that Fidel Castro or the KGB were involved in the assassination of JFK. However, when asked to produce this evidence, he either ignores the postings, makes silly jokes that attempts to move posters onto another topic, makes excuses for his failure to post or makes promises that he will do it sometime in the future.

I thought it might be worthwhile to start a new thread on Tim Gratz’s evidence (or lack of it). Maybe members who are still waiting for answers should register their questions again on this thread.

Tim, I have read Russo's book, and I've known Gus since we lobbied for the first hearings on the JFK Act in the early 1990s. Back then I looked at him like another independent, freelance journalist, one not bankrolled by a corp news source, but have since recognized his true stripes.

John Judge thought him suspicous from the beginning, especially when he saw gus in a DC restaurant with one of his Spook friends/sources. Later Russo gushed, "They call me 'Gus!"

Gus invited me to his book party in Baltimore, and since it was around Holloweeen (David A. Phillips' birthday), I was going to go dressed as Castro.

Gus is a good researcher, but has an angle that he's trying to prove and a link he's taken up that he can't let go, because he's sold his soul. There's a lot of important items in his book (ie. LICOVY3) but instead of following the evidence to its source, he takes the evidence to his suspect. It just doesn't work that way, whether the suspect is the mob, the CIA, the KGB or Castro.

As for the idea that Castro was behind the assassination, every witness and document is connected to the Black Prop Op - Northwoods - program - that is still in operation today - or bought into it.

What really happened is one of the many teams set up to kill Castro, who were aborted from their original mission, retarged JFK.

Another false scenario is that one of the teams was captured by Castro and turned around to kill JFK, ie Bayo and co., which Johnson himself spelled out in his own terms. LBJ: "...Castro said they [the plotters] had these pills, and they're supposed to take'em when they caught'em, and they didn't get to take their pills - so he [Castro] tourtured'em. And they told him all about it, and who was present and why they did it. So he [Castro] said, okay, we'll just take care of that. So then he called Oswald and a group in, and told them...about this meetin' and go set it up and get the job done....Now that's their story...."

And their story is a concoction that just doesn't hold water, no matter how much you hate Castro.

Attached is a partial list of the Castro Did It Black Prop Ops that I know of.

Bk

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Black Propaganda Operations affiliated with the Assassination of JFK:

1) A leaflet was distributed to the Florida Cuban community in November, 1963 that warned of an “Act of God” that would put a “Texan in the White House.”

2) Lee Harvey Oswald’s Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

3) Oswald’s visit to the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City in Sept., 1963.

4) The photographs of Oswald brandishing a rifle and pistol and copies of two leftest but contradictory magazines in his back yard.

5) The last two issues President Kennedy dealt with before leaving the White House for Texas concerned his backchannel negotiations with Fidel Castro at the UN and the discovery of a cache of weapons in Venezuela that appeared to have come from Cuba. The weapons story was later discovered to be over a year old and planted by the CIA to falsely implicate Cuba.

6) Julio Fernandez, one of three anti-Castro Cubans whose boat was financially supported by Clair Booth Luce, called Luce, wife of the publisher of Time-Life on the evening of the assassination to report information on Oswald’s activities in New Orleans. Fernandez, a former Cuban publisher, was married to an attorney who worked for Catholic Welfare Services in Miami.

7) In Miami, shortly after the assassination, Dr. Jose Ignorzio, the chief of clinical psychology for the Catholic Welfare Services, contacted the White House to inform the new administration that Oswald had met directly with Cuban ambassador Armas in Mexico.

8) In Mexico City, David Atlee Philips of the CIA debriefed a Nicaraguan intelligence officer, code named “D,” who claimed to have seen Oswald take money from a Cuban at the Cuban embassy.

9) In New Zealand, U.S.A.F. Col. Fletcher Prouty read complete biographies of Oswald in the local papers hours after the assassination, indicating to him that a bio of Oswald was pre-prepared.

10) Brothers Jerry and James Buchanan, CIA propaganda assets, began promoting the Castro-did-it theme immediately. According to Donald Freed and Jeff Cohen (in Liberation Magazine), the source of the Buchanan’s tales was the leader of the CIA supported International Anti-Communist Brigade (IAB). “Back in Miami,” they wrote, “a high powered propaganda machine was cranking out stories that Oswald was a Cuban agent…” Sturgis is quoted in the Pampara Beach Sun-Sentinel as saying that Oswald had talked with Cuban G-2 agents and fracassed with IAB members in Miami in 1962.

11) Jack Anderson used Sturgis and mobster John Rosselli to keep the Castro plot propaganda story going well into the 1970s.

12) The same “propaganda machine” was still pumping out the same lines in 1976 when Gaeton Fonzi interviewed Sturgis, who said that he had recently ran into a friend who worked for the “company” who reminded him of an incident he had completely forgotten about. Sturgis suddenly recalled, “that he had heard about a meeting in Havana about two months before the Kennedy assassination. At the meeting there were a number of high-ranking men, including Castro, hs brother Raul, Ramiro Valdez, the chief of Cuban intelligence, Che Guevara and his secretary Tanya, another Cuban officer, an American known as ‘El Mexicano,’ and,…oh, yea; Jack Ruby. And the meeting dealt with plotting the assassination of President Kennedy.”

13) Seith Kantor, a Scripps-Howard News Service Reporter in Dallas during the assassination, couldn’t understand why his telephone call records from Parkland Hospital were being withheld because “disclosure would reveal confidential source of information.” When Kantor checked his own records he discovered his editor had told him to call another reporter in Florida or some deep background on Oswald. The reporter in Florida had everything on Oswald, FPFCC, Russian defection, New Orleans radio debate, etc., but instead of using it himself, fed it to Kantor. The reporter was Hal “the Spook” Hendrix, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Cuban Missile Crisis and earned his nickname when he “reported” on the Dominican Republic Coup on September 24, 1963, the day before it happened. His CIA affiliations became better known when he went to work for ITT in Chile and was found guilty of withholding information from a Congressional committee concerning his role in the Chilean coup.

14) While other major news organizations have been exposed as CIA media assets, such as CBS News, Life Magazine, the North American Newspaper Alliance and the Copley Newspaper chain, the Scripps-Howard News Service (SHNS) stands out not only because of the Kantor-Hendrix connection, but because of the March 12 news report out of Washington. An obvious black propaganda operation that stems from NSA intercepts (note that the NSA does not issue press releases), and continues to implicate Castro in not only the assassination of President Kennedy, but in the planning of an assassination on President Reagan. This story is remarkably similar to the one that Sturgis tells [in #12] and includes many of the same conspirators. [see: SHNS Story]. Also please note that two weeks after this obvious piece of black propaganda disinformation was published, President Reagan was shot in front of the Washington Hilton by John Hinkley.

[Tim Carroll]

What really happened is one of the many teams set up to kill Castro, who were aborted from their original mission, retarged JFK. Another false scenario is that one of the teams was captured by Castro and turned around to kill JFK, ie Bayo and co....

Four years after the assassination of the President, the CIA Inspector General conducted an internal investigation which was forwarded to Lyndon Johnson, who told newsman Howard K. Smith: "I'll tell you something that will rock you; Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got to him first." In March 1967, columnist Drew Pearson wrote, "President Johnson is sitting on a political H-bomb-an unconfirmed report that Senator Robert Kennedy (Dem. N.Y.) may have approved an assassination plot which then possibly backfired against his brother."*

The source for the Pearson article was the original mafioso hired by the CIA to kill Castro, Johnny Roselli. The spin being placed on this new round of stories was, like the Oswald promotion, aimed at leading the public to believe that Castro was behind the conspiracy in Dallas. Roselli had revealed to Pearson, through his attorney, Edward Morgan, that "One of our assassination teams was captured and tortured until they told all they knew about our operation which they said was ordered by the White House." Roselli asserted that "the team was turned around, you know, brainwashed, and sent back into our country to kill Kennedy."**

All good lies contain a good measure of truth, and such may be the case with Roselli's attempt at history-making. Although this colorful rendition is compelling, given the source, it should be recognized that contained in this version is the admission that it was an anti-Castro hit team that had killed Kennedy. But this secret "team" would hardly have required anything so exotic as brainwashing to retarget its skills against the President. By November of 1963, Kennedy was clearly a foe to the extreme anti-Castro elements; they believed he had cancelled the airstrikes and betrayed the Bay of Pigs operation, then compounded the betrayal by giving the no-invasion pledge, and finally sealed the antipathy by shutting down the exile camps and beginning negotiations directed toward the normalization of relations with Cuba.

* New York Times, June 25, 1976.

** Ovid Demaris, The Last Mafioso. New York: Bantam Books, 1981), 235-241.

Tim Carroll

[John Simkin]

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument"

William Gibbs McAdoo------1863--1941

[Tim Gratz]

John, you're confessing?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

John, you're confessing?

Tim, rather than attempts at humour, why not answer some of the requests for evidence, some of which was promised months ago, that members have asked for on this thread.

[Mark Knight]

An ignorant man is one who lacks knowledge. For Tim Gratz to imply that John Simkin is ignorant, Tim would have to ignore voluminous evidence to the contrary that is available on this very forum.

If Tim meant this as a joke, he's possibly the only one who saw the humor in it.

And Stephen, Tim is only imitating his heroes in the current administration...when in uncomfortable circumstances, either attempt to change the subject, or keep stalling when asked to produce evidence in hopes that eventually the matter will be forgotten [or grand juries'/congressional committees' terms have expired, depending on the situation].

I can imagine Tim's Republican party masters saying to him, "You have learned well, Grasshopper..."

[Gerry Hemming]

An ignorant man is one who lacks knowledge. For Tim Gratz to imply that John Simkin is ignorant, Tim would have to ignore voluminous evidence to the contrary that is available on this very forum.

If Tim meant this as a joke, he's possibly the only one who saw the humor in it.

And Stephen, Tim is only imitating his heroes in the current administration...when in uncomfortable circumstances, either attempt to change the subject, or keep stalling when asked to produce evidence in hopes that eventually the matter will be forgotten [or grand juries'/congressional committees' terms have expired, depending on the situation].

I can imagine Tim's Republican party masters saying to him, "You have learned well, Grasshopper..."

----------------------------

Jesus H. CRIST Gratz, will you finally come clean and "fess-up" to being a quasi-Ashmann, Larry King-like, Liddy, John Dean, John Mitchell, et al. "BANISHED TO THE MOORS" shyster !!

Think about it Lad. Fitzgerald might well give you a suite at the Madison Hotel whilst you "rat-out" Segretti-Libby; Segretti-Rove; Segretti-"Chains" Cheney; Segretti-Novak; and per-chance the Jedi-Master [baitor] Segretti-"Shrub" his-assself ??!!

Fondly,

GPH

____________________________