Rendezvous w/Death

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Anthony Summers' review of "Rendezvous with Death" gives additional information on the movie:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...74173_2,00.html

Robert is correct to reserve judgment before viewing it but I hope (although I doubt it) that members will view it with an open mind.

If it hard to keep one's mind open, it will prove to be a direct result of the participants' past track record. Again we see the hand of Gus Russo - he of the fictitious Pulitzer nomination - proferring what we already know is fraudulent "evidence" from the last time it was debunked, by the ARRB. The Marty Underwood notes were not contemporaneous, did not accurately depict what he purportedly gleaned from Win Scott, and Underwood declined to state otherwise under oath when given the opportunity. Moreover, whatever he allegedly told Russo, he recanted when interviewed by ARRB staff. Either Underwood lied, Russo lied, they both lied, or this is a mere misunderstanding of cosmic proportions. None of those explanations give us much hope for a film that depicts an acceptable "truth."

What is clear from the foregoing is that Russo knew from the ARRB debunking of this spurious crap a decade ago that it was not legitimate. This hasn't prevented Russo from dredging the spurious crap up yet again, giving it another go for an audience that is hoped will prove less discerning than the last one. What can one say about a man who makes Pulitzer claims out of thin air, and continues to peddle fiction as fact, despite knowing the difference? Is he merely shameless? Is he out to profit on the gullibility of others? Has he been blackmailed into such loathesome self-destructive gambits?

As for Comer Clark, the author behind the 1967 National Enquirer expose of Castro's alleged complicity in the assassination - including Castro's own highly accomodating admission that he knew all about the plot and might have been able to stop it had he only bothered to try - it is clearly spurious on a number of key points.

First, was there ever any evidence that Clark had interviewed Castro at all? No. The only item presented to the HSCA in favour of Clark's being granted an interview with Castro was this: "... even though there may be considerable doubt as to the fact of Clark's interview with President Castro, the committee has been informed that the substance of the Clark article is supported by highly confidential but reliable sources available to the U.S. Government." In other words, even though the Clark-Castro interview may never have happened, the assertions included in the interview-that-never-was have been confirmed by somebody we will not name, and whose own credibility may be no better than Clark's.

Second, was Clark a seasoned journalist of unimpeachable repute? No. As the HSCA delineated, Clark's CV contained nothing of any material substance, but instead was replete with: "Nevertheless, the committee, while conducting other investigations in England, made an effort to explore Mr. Clark's background and reputation for veracity. Frankly, it was not good. Apparently, he wrote extensively for the sensationalist press in England. His articles include such items as "British Girls as Nazi Sex Slaves," "I Was Hitler's Secret Love," and "German Plans To Kidnap the Royal Family."

Third, as Castro himself pointed out to the HSCA investigators, he is besieged regularly for interviews by media personnel from all over the globe, and grants one interview for every hundred such requests. Barbara Walters was kept waiting three years for her tete a tete with Castro. So, on what basis would Castro grant an interview to Clark? Because he was such a great admirer of Clark's past work on Nazi Sex Slave Chicks? Because Castro couldn't wait to see his picture in the National Enquirer? Please, dear boy. This didn't pass the laugh test for the HSCA, and shouldn't be afforded any greater weight today. Unlike wine, time and aging have not improved this dung.

Fourth, even if we grant that such an interview took place, and that Castro was quoted accurately, what he allegedly admitted to Clark - knowledge of a plot, couple with his own disbelief that such a plot would ever take shape - undercuts the premise that Castro ordered Kennedy's death, the very central premise of the film. It is one thing to use a shaky witness [Clark] telling an outlandishly unbelievable tale [Castro admitted he could have stopped the assassination], without then further offending logic and truth by twisting the tale into something that neither Clark nor Castro ever said. What can one make of such desperation to pretzel the truth? What conclusions can one draw about the character and integrity of people who traffick such long-debunked xxxxe as stunning new revelations.

Then we have a few small matters alluded to by Summers' review that will also never pass the sniff test:

The Soviets declined to recruit Oswald while he resided in the USSR, and wrote him off as unstable, but nevertheless suggested him as being of possible use to the Cubans? How likely is it that a man regarded as having no value by one employer is nevertheless recommended for use to a second employer? Were the Soviets and Cubans not working in concert? Or were the Soviets trying to subvert the Cubans by passing on useless lunatics to them?

Quoting from Summers' review: "Señor Valdes’ staff did as their Soviet counterparts suggested, and had their first contact with Oswald in November, a few weeks after the Cuban missile crisis. More contacts followed — directed, according to the documentary, by Rolando Cubela, then a trusted Castro associate. Oswald was supplied with modest sums of money, and acquired a file at Havana headquarters in a section assigned to “Foreign Collaborators”

Given that CIA began grooming Cubela to kill Castro beginning in 1961, we thus see a most peculiar nexus of interests converging in late 1962 and beyond. The man whom CIA wished to have assassinate Castro apparently "directed" the man who would end up accused of assassinating Kennedy. So, was Oswald CIA's pawn, once-removed via Cubela, or Castro's? No doubt the film will only consider one of these two possibilities, as is invariably the case with those who militate for Castro's culpability in the Dallas tragedy.

Those interested in this aspect of the case might profit from reading a Jefferson Morley piece here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...312.morley.html

At least one of the earlier reviews indicated that Escalante was evasive. I note agin that although Escalante claimed to have a written confession from Tony Cuesta, when Gordon Baldwin pressed him to produce it, Escalante stonewalled.

I am unfamiliar with the Gordon Baldwin you cite. However, I would note that it would be highly unusual for Cuban security staff - Escalante or anyone else - to travel internationally with such closely held documents. This is evidence of nothing. If it were, then one could only conclude that the US government must have killed Kennedy, for otherwise what could explain the stunning number of assassination-related documents it kept classified until passage of the JFK Records Act, and the number of docs that are still classified and unreleased?

The Summers review notes that four people with connections to Cuban intelligence were interviewed and confirmed Cuban involvenent.

And if their own credibility is on a par with Comer Clark, Marty Underwood and Gus Russo, we will learn only to avoid being conned by inveterate dissemblers with an axe to grind.

[Terry Mauro]

To keep in mind when evaluating anti Cuba propaganda:

Bush a Terrorist trampling on human rights using mass weapons of economic destruction and truth distortion:

______________________________________________________

Uncovering Bush Plan for Regime Change in Cuba

Cuba Now

November 11, 2004

http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?c...nt=num28/02.htm

Uncovering Bush Plan for Regime Change in Cuba

By Hope Bastian ZNet

Cubanow.- I'm living in a war zone, but what I see when I look out the window of my apartment in Havana , Cuba does not resemble the pictures in the papers of the war in Iraq . No missiles have been fired here, there are no camouflaged soldiers in the streets with guns, no armored tanks roll by. The sun is still shining, the birds still sing, and the streets are alive with people busy living their lives. There are no children dying in the streets from shrapnel wounds, but there is no doubt the nation is under attack. Here the war is manifested not in body counts and car-bombings but in the constant assault of material poverty: crumbling homes and rolling black-outs. It doesn't look like a war zone, but the US government is waging a silent war here and no one is left untouched.

The war in Iraq is not the only war that the Bush Administration is involved in today and its plans for "regime change" are not limited to the Middle East . They might have caught Saddam, but there's another bearded "bad-guy" on the loose, and another nation, weak after years of US sanctions, to be "liberated". There's nothing new about the war against Cuba , which started in May of 1961, only four months after the Revolution overthrew US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Forty-five years and over 600 assassination attempts later, the war against Cuba is now principally fought with weapons of economic destruction. The Bush Administration has intensified this economic war and made overthrowing the Cuban government a higher priority in this election year than in previous years.

Last October, Bush began his presidential campaign with a pledge to radical rightist elements of the Cuban-American community in South Florida to take drastic steps to strengthen the enforcement of the US embargo against Cuba . "Clearly, the Castro regime will not change by its own choice," Bush said, "But Cuba must change." In his speech, Bush announced the establishment of the Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba, "to plan for the happy day when Castro's regime is no more and democracy comes to the island." The Commission was asked to draw upon experts within the US government to "identify ways to hasten the arrival of that day." Bush warned that, "The transition to freedom will present many challenges to the Cuban people and to America ", and promised that, "In all that lies ahead, the Cuban people have a constant friend in the United States of America . We are confident that no matter what the dictator intends or plans, Cuba sera pronto libre" .

On May 6, 2004 , the Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba, chaired by Secretary of State Colin Powell, and staffed by a "dream team" of high level cabinet officials reported back to the president. They presented a 458-page report outlining concrete steps to be taken by the Bush administration to overthrow the Cuban government. As soon as the report was released, wheels were set in motion to write these recommendations into law. On June 16, 2004 , the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published a new set of regulations in the Federal Register to govern US economic relations with Cuba . (OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions that support US foreign policy and national security goals).

Much of the press coverage in the US about these new measures has focused on the ways in which they have affected Cuban families on both sides of the Florida Strait . However, the most controversial measures are contained in other new regulations. The US government has instituted new measures limiting Cuba 's ability to engage in international trade in its attempt to overthrow the Cuban government.

The Bush administration's current war for regime change in Cuba depends not on cluster bombs and depleted uranium, but on the use of a 45-year old economic embargo as a weapon to isolate Cuba . By preventing other countries from trading with Cuba , the US government hopes to make it impossible for the nation to provide for the needs of its citizens. Cuba will reach a breaking point; the people will rise up against their government and welcome the US "liberators" with open arms. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work. A full 400 pages of the 458 page "Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba Report" are focused on the delivery of aid by the US government to a new regime to ease the suffering caused by the crippling economic embargo. The report outlines in detail a plan for rebuilding the country in the US 's image of a model representative democracy with a free-market economy. Does the term nation building sound familiar from some other context?

When socialism ended in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union , Cuba lost its largest trading partner and fell into a deep economic depression. In the US , many hoped that Cuban socialism would follow and it was to that end that they chose that moment to tighten the embargo. In October 1992, less than a month before the US general elections, Congress passed the Torricelli Act. Foreign subsidiaries of US owned companies were prohibited from trading with Cuba . Ships that delivered goods to Cuba were prohibited from docking in US ports for six months after, forcing shipping companies to decide who they wanted to trade with: Cuba or the United States . Because a ship docking in Cuba either loses access to the US market or risks a steep fine if they dock in a US port, Cuba 's shipping costs skyrocketed.

The law also restricted remittances, prohibited economic assistance and debt forgiveness to any country conducting trade with Cuba , and increased punitive measures for anyone breaking the trade embargo or traveling to Cuba illegally.

Four years later, in another election year (1996), Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act. This Act included another series of harsh measures aimed at preventing non-US firms from trading with Cuba by punishing those who engage in commercial dealings with Cuba . Under the Helms-Burton Act, any naturalized US citizens whose Cuban property had been confiscated since the Revolution now had the right to sue, in US courts, the foreign companies or individuals who they deem have gained from investments in those properties.

It also authorized the US State Department to deny visas to the executives, majority shareholders and their families of companies that have invested in property that belonged to US companies prior to the Revolution.

Before the Helms-Burton Act, many elements of the embargo existed only as executive orders and regulations that could be modified by the president.

Helms-Burton codified the embargo requiring an act of Congress to lift the embargo. It also dictated the conditions that must exist in Cuba before the embargo would be lifted. Top on the list were the creation of a new government in Cuba that does not include Fidel or Raul Castro and proof that this new government was "substantially moving towards a market-oriented economic system based on the right to own and enjoy property".

The recent attacks by the US Treasury Department on businesses trading with Cuba show the strength of the Bush administration's commitment to "regime change" in Cuba . Perhaps these attacks also demonstrate its lack of commitment to fighting international terrorism. While the Treasury Department has 21 employees who track financial transactions with Cuba , it has only four employees responsible for tracking the funding of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda operatives may remain at-large, planning future terrorist attacks, but we can all rest assured that James Sabzali, a Canadian citizen who sold resins used to purify public drinking water in Cuba, has been slapped with a $10,000 fine and a 12-month conditional sentence for his dangerous actions. To you or me, this may sound a little harsh; to the Bush administration, it is clear that an unequivocal message must be sent to the international business community that trading with Cuba is "trading with the enemy". As the well-known axiom of Bush's foreign policy clearly states, "You're either with us or against us".

One recommendation in the Commission's May report was that the US government establish a Cuban Asset Targeting Group, to investigate and identify new ways in which hard currency is moved in and out of Cuba . In May, the US Federal Reserve fined UBS AG, Switzerland 's largest bank, $100 million dollars US for allegedly sending US dollars to Cuba in violation of provisions of the embargo that prevent Cuba from trading in dollars. This action has created serious problems for Cuba by making it very difficult to deposit its dollars abroad and renew bills in circulation.

Although the Bush administration claims that, "There is a growing international consensus on the nature of the Castro regime and the need for fundamental political and economic change on the island." for thirteen straight years, the UN General Assembly has voted to condemn the US embargo against Cuba . On October 28, 2004 , the UN General Assembly voted 179 to 4 with one abstention on a resolution condemning the US economic embargo of Cuba . During these thirteen years, the margin in favor of Cuba has steadily increased. This year, only the United States , Israel , Palau and the Marshall Islands voted against a condemnation of the embargo. Is this the "coalition of the willing" who supports US policies for "regime change" in Cuba ? Just as in the current military war for "regime change" in Iraq , the US government stands alone in its economic war against Cuba , supported only by a weak coalition of "allies" who cannot refuse.

A war of attrition is being fought by the US in Cuba . The Cuban people are suffering from the cumulative effects of 45 years of economic policies designed to create the conditions for a US-assisted transition to a free-market economy. The island is blockaded, not by US battleships and destroyers, but by a collection of laws and presidential mandates that fly in the face of international law, limiting the free movement of trade and the economic sovereignty of Cuba and those who would do business with them.

(Hope Bastian is an educator working to educate US citizens about the ways that US foreign policy affects the people of Latin America ).

Cubanow © is developed by Ediciones ICAIC & Martín Luther King Jr. Memorial Center. All rights reserved ISSN-1810-3405 Programming; Ing. Indira Izquierdo Rodríguez Desing by:D.I. Alain López González

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

"Bush warned that, "The transition to freedom will present many challenges to the Cuban people and to America ", and promised that, "In all that lies ahead, the Cuban people have a constant friend in the United States of America . We are confident that no matter what the dictator intends or plans, Cuba sera pronto libre"."

In other words, this "transition to freedom" is really meant for the dispossessed Cuban elitist plantation owners. Therefore, the challenges to the Cuban people will commence when these former slave-owners are once again allowed to lay claim to their plantations, and prevail over their former servants and subjects. Servants, whom I'm sure they'd prefer to believe, will be welcoming back their former masters, [and the prospect of living the rest of their lives in their prior indentured capacity] with open arms.

"Although the Bush administration claims that, "There is a growing international consensus on the nature of the Castro regime and the need for fundamental political and economic change on the island." for thirteen straight years, the UN General Assembly has voted to condemn the US embargo against Cuba . On October 28, 2004 , the UN General Assembly voted 179 to 4 with one abstention on a resolution condemning the US economic embargo of Cuba . During these thirteen years, the margin in favor of Cuba has steadily increased. This year, only the United States, Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voted against a condemnation of the embargo. Is this the "coalition of the willing" who supports US policies for "regime change" in Cuba ? Just as in the current military war for "regime change" in Iraq , the US government stands alone in its economic war against Cuba , supported only by a weak coalition of "allies" who cannot refuse."

I guess that shows you where the U.S.'s money is currently being laundered, off-shore.

And, anyone with half a brain knows that NAFTA, aka Laissez Faire, aka "Free" Trade, is only profitable for the CEO's and corporate heads. "Free" Trade means "free" or "pretty-damned-close-to-free" labor to the corporate owners and their shareholders. They're the only ones who end up profiteering from being able to out-source U.S. jobs to Third World country sweatshops and slave-labor camps. Countries where they can get away with paying people less than a dollar an hour. And, if you think the lower cost of living in these countries warrants the lower pay scale, you're in denial, and you're dreaming! You can point to China [AFTA] as an example of prosperity, but point to the outlying countryside where the so-called "employees" really reside, not to the big cities where the corporate headquarters take care of upper management. Go to where their sweatshop "coolies" still live on dirt floors. Same thing with South America. NAFTA, CAFTA, aka "right to work" which means, "You have the right to be terminated without being given a reason, nor recourse. You may also terminate your employment without giving notice [that must look real swell on a resume]." It also means lack of medical benefits, below minimum wage, no OSHA, no security. But, the fascists will tell you,

"It's the American Way! Be your own entrepeneurial promoter!" Sorry folks, that may have been la-dee-dah for the Manifest Destiny crowd of the late 1800's. But, don't you think this country should have evolved to a much higher standard after 230 years? At least, to a position where all of its citizens, even those purposely disenfranchized blacks, reds, browns, yellows, and even the po' white trash, might all be living a more egalitarian existence? Instead, we're being faced with an ever-widening gap of economic disparity today that should have been dealt with and irradicated in the last century. The only promise Bush and his neocons have for Cuba is the continued exploitation of its laboring class of people. Especially, once another Batista-like puppet regime finally gets the go-ahead to be set in place for Cuba's former property and plantation owners.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

The Soviets declined to recruit Oswald while he resided in the USSR, and wrote him off as unstable, but nevertheless suggested him as being of possible use to the Cubans? How likely is it that a man regarded as having no value by one employer is nevertheless recommended for use to a second employer? Were the Soviets and Cubans not working in concert? Or were the Soviets trying to subvert the Cubans by passing on useless lunatics to them?

I very infrequently agree with Mr. Charles-Dunne but frequently admire his rhetoric. Love that last line! Query, however, whether Mr. Charles-Dunne actually believes Oswald was a lunatic ("nut")? I know Mr. Charles-Dunne does not believe that Oswald was a "lone nut".

I think most of us here agree that regardless of what his role might have been (conspirator, patsy, US intelligence agent) Oswald was an intelligent person and not a lunatic.

To make a correction to my post, my reference was to Gordon Winslow, not to a Gordon Baldwin. Sorry about that confusion. But the point about Escalante was not that he did not bring with him to the conference the original signed confession of Cuesta but rather he did not even have a photocopy of it with him. (My sources advise me that DGI possessed photocopiers at least by 1995.) The alleged signed Cuesta confession was an important development. Strange that Escalante would mention it without having a photocopy with it. Moreover when Winslow pressed him for it (he could have always mailed it to him) Escalante stone-walled. So Mr. Charles-Dunne's point that Escalante would not be carrying such documents with him is really no response to his stone-walling.

I wonder what Mr. Charles-Dunne would say of me (or anyone else for that matter) if I claimed to have a signed confession of one of the conspirators but refused to produce it? I think that is a fairly good test of one's credibility. And therefore the point becomes why would Escalante lie about that?

[George Bollschweiler]

I just like to give you an overview about Huismann’s documentary that was showed last Friday. For the part it covered it was logical and made sense and brought up some interesting points.

Short summary “Rendezvous with death”.

According to a fax sent July 62 from the KGB to the Cuban intelligence, Marina Oswald was an agent for the Soviet Union and the Russians asked the Cuban intelligence to contact Oswald after his return to the States.

Fabian Escalante denies the existence of that cable. Escalante also denies to have ever been to Mexico, a country who he says always interested him because of its culture and history but unfortunately he never had the chance to go there.

Marino a former member of the Cuban intelligence names the person who first contacted Oswald in November 62, the man he says was Cubela. He also confirms that Escalante met with Oswald in Mexico.

Cubela, who lives in Spain now, confirms that he had been assigned by Robert Kennedy to assassinate Castro but went quite nervous when confronted that he was the one who contacted Oswald in the States.

The man Oswald contacted in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico was described as a dark man with reddish hair. According to Marino the man’s name was Cesar Morales Mesa.

Silva Duran, who worked at the Cuban Embassy said that she only saw Oswald once, when he came to apply for the visa to travel to Cuba, but Huismann found people who said that Oswald was at a party invited by Duran. After the assassination Duran got arrested and tortured by the Mexican police who say that Duran confirmed witnessing Oswald receiving 6500 $ from Cesar Morales.

After November 62, Oswald was working for the Cuban intelligence and he was trying to infiltrate Exile Cubans groups in the States. E.g. His fight with Beringuer in New Orleans was all part of the show. The Walker shooting was a kind of test to show and proof his capability to his handlers.

Alexander Haig said that LBJ was afraid that if any connection to Cuba would be discovered

the risk of war would raise dramatically and therefore the LN theory was the solution.

Sam Halpern who was in responsible fort he AM-LASH program in 63’ says at the end, it was quite simple both (Cuba and the US) had assassination plans but the Cubans just were better, they won we lost.

Marino said, when asked why they had chosen Oswald, "We knew he wasn't the best, but he was willing and he was available ". Oswald actually brought the idea up. There were no plans to rescue Oswald, actually he was left on his own and the promises that were made to him were just blown in the wind.

Below Cubela.

Edited January 9, 2006 by George Bollschweiler

[Tim Gratz]

A few days ago Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

I will withhold judgement on the flick until having watched it, but the advance data we've seen floated thus far doesn't give one much reason to expect it will solve anything

But yesterday he started a rather major attack on "Rendezvous with Death". One of the bases for his attacks was casting doubt on the report by Marty Underwood that Win Scot was aware of a report that Fabian escalante had been in Dallas the day of the assassination.

Specifically Robert wrote:

Again we see the hand of Gus Russo - he of the fictitious Pulitzer nomination - proferring what we already know is fraudulent "evidence" from the last time it was debunked, by the ARRB.

Now I have admitted there were reported problems with Underwood's credibility. But that does not mean that what he said was an outright fabrication. Underwood may have embellished things to increase his credibility but that does not mean the substance of what he said was a fabrication.

Let us take an analogy. Everyone knows that Nosenko fibbed about his bona fides. Those "fibs" (lies) do not mean that whatever else he said was a lie. If they did, we could use those fibs then to PROVE LHO was a KGB agent, since Nosenko's denial of such status must have been a lie.

Unless Robert is prepared to accept that everything Nosenko said about Oswald was a lie, he must be willing to admit that people do "stretch the truth" to increase the plausability of their stories but such incidents do not prove that the underlying story is false.

Moreover, we do not know if "Rendezvous with Death" discovered other evidence (independent of Underwood's story) of a report that Escalante was in Dallas.

I note that George seemed to find the film plausible.

I think we need to see the film before we try to pick it apart. I also think when it does arrive in the US, it should be viewed with an open mind by those who doubt Cuban involvement in the assassination.

Finally, Robert continually ridicules Russo's credibility by raising the issue whether "Live By the Sword" was ever nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. I will attempt to clarify how this apparent error arose. I note however that he has never to my knowledge located a single error in the book, not one.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[George Bollschweiler]

I note that George seemed to find the film plausible.

After watching this documentary I was left with two different feelings. First I asked myself what his (Huismann’s) intension could have been to make this film, did he want to solve the crime or was he merely just adding another piece to the story. Those who always believed that Oswald was the killer will surely point gloatingly to this new documentary as once more a proof for LHO’s guilt. Huismann himself does not make any comment whatsoever he believes and the viewer is left alone to make his own conclusion and therefore he should get some credit.

Secondly I recognized that he does not try to fit his story into the main discrepancies most conspiracy theories have in common. Nothing about Lee before going to Russia except some CV details and of course nothing about the actual planning but having studied a couple of high buildings in Dallas. The shooting itself is only covered by showing the Zapruder film right at the beginning.

As a conclusion I’d say that Huismann film is trying to explain in depth one of the pieces of the JFK assassination puzzle, Oswald in Mexico. This he does pretty well but at the end you will find yourself left with more questions than answers.

George

[Tim Gratz]

As everyone knows I think there was Cuban complicity in the assassination but I now doubt the involvement of Oswald. But I need to wait to actually see the documentary.

My scenario is that Trafficante was a prime mover and he probably received encouragement (and perhaps more) from Jimmy Hoffa. The possibility (probability) of Cuban involvement is suggested by Castro's strong motive (per "Ultimate Sacrifice" Bobby Kennedy was trying to remove Castro from office both by assassination and coup); by the strong probability that Trafficante had made a deal with Castro and was assisting Castro by intelligence etc both in the US and Cuba; and by the reported presence of Cuban agents in Dallas. My own belief (and it is just that) is that LHO was actually on a mission for US intelligence and by employing him as a patsy the conspirators accomplished two goals: they ensured the participation in the cover-up by those agencies and also were able to use the spectre of Cuban involvement to secure a cover-up. In other words, I do not believe that Oswald himself shot JFK at the bequest of Cuban intelligence.

I have said before I think LBJ may have been given very short advance notice of the assassination and may have been forced into the cover-up because he had been corrupted by receiving money from the Marcello organization. Indeed the Marcello "bagman" attended the dinner that was attended by both JFK and LBJ the night before the assassination.

But again I want to view the film before forming a judgment. I suspect that at a minimum it offers valid new information that must be assessed even if it does not get "everything" right.

[Larry Hancock]

George, it would be really helpful if you could itemize the new sources and information

that are given in the documentary. Are there actually new Mexican wire taps or

tapes sampled in the documentary? Are there new Mexican intelligence files or only

Russian and Cuban? Does the video give any explanation why such files would have

been allowed to remain if they implicated Cuba and Fidel?

On the individuals, do any of them admit actually meeting with Oswald and what

he said or they said specifically.....?

Perhaps most importantly where are those sources living now, are they still

in Cuba, did they defect to the US, any information like that? Obviously if they

just waited to be contacted by a film maker it raises interesting questions.

And finally, does the documentary give any detail on how the key witnesses

were located and why they decided to talk at this date? Not to mention

if the film included any verification of them e.g. that they were really Cuban

intelligence officers.

...that's asking a lot but a little more data would really help this dialog..

Is there any sign that the film maker is going to make available any source

material such as complete interviews, documents, background on the sources?

Neither Russo or Summers seem to have commented on that point..

-- thank you, Larry

I note that George seemed to find the film plausible.

After watching this documentary I was left with two different feelings. First I asked myself what his (Huismann’s) intension could have been to make this film, did he want to solve the crime or was he merely just adding another piece to the story. Those who always believed that Oswald was the killer will surely point gloatingly to this new documentary as once more a proof for LHO’s guilt. Huismann himself does not make any comment whatsoever he believes and the viewer is left alone to make his own conclusion and therefore he should get some credit.

Secondly I recognized that he does not try to fit his story into the main discrepancies most conspiracy theories have in common. Nothing about Lee before going to Russia except some CV details and of course nothing about the actual planning but having studied a couple of high buildings in Dallas. The shooting itself is only covered by showing the Zapruder film right at the beginning.

As a conclusion I’d say that Huismann film is trying to explain in depth one of the pieces of the JFK assassination puzzle, Oswald in Mexico. This he does pretty well but at the end you will find yourself left with more questions than answers.

George

[John Dolva]

...........After the assassination Duran got arrested and tortured by the Mexican police who say that Duran confirmed witnessing Oswald receiving 6500 $ from Cesar Morales............

So the suggestion is that a number of Mexican police knew of this and withheld it. What is the date of this arrest? Who were the arresting officers? What records were kept? Why did they withold it? Is the conspiracy so huge that Mexico, US, Cuba, USSR and who else were involved? WHY..and why would a dubious fimmaker now be priviledged with all this..bollocks!!!

sure Kennedy was an important person. Utterly absurd to consider him THAT important. This film smacks of opportunistic propaganda.

It is a serious charge re the mexican police. Is there a coverup involving the Mexican authorities or as seems more likely a malicious mischievous propaganda film in line with Bushs attempts to bring the nation of Cuba to its knees. The background of the filmaker as propagandist is telling.

Who paid for this film to be made? What is their background? Who are the distributors? What about the other people involved in the making of the film? The researchers, producers, sponsors? What is the history of distribution rights etc.

Should there be a need to pursue the sources in order to sort this apparent nonsense out it probably is a good idea to at least make a note of this.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

In order to reply to two of Tim Gratz's posts in this thread, I've combined them below.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

The Soviets declined to recruit Oswald while he resided in the USSR, and wrote him off as unstable, but nevertheless suggested him as being of possible use to the Cubans? How likely is it that a man regarded as having no value by one employer is nevertheless recommended for use to a second employer? Were the Soviets and Cubans not working in concert? Or were the Soviets trying to subvert the Cubans by passing on useless lunatics to them?

I very infrequently agree with Mr. Charles-Dunne but frequently admire his rhetoric. Love that last line! Query, however, whether Mr. Charles-Dunne actually believes Oswald was a lunatic ("nut")? I know Mr. Charles-Dunne does not believe that Oswald was a "lone nut".

I think most of us here agree that regardless of what his role might have been (conspirator, patsy, US intelligence agent) Oswald was an intelligent person and not a lunatic.

As you know, Tim, we are in agreement that Oswald was intelligent, stable and likely a smallish pawn in a game too large for him to fathom, at least until it was too late. However, what you or I speculate about him is reallly secondary to the context I was alluding to: what did the Soviets think of him? Had they deemed him stable and of any prospective value, surely they would have recruited him themselves. Yet this doesn't seem to have been the case, which is why I raised the question: why would the Soviets forego recruiting him, yet pass him on to the Cubans? If you have any hypothetical answers to this question, I am all ears.

To make a correction to my post, my reference was to Gordon Winslow, not to a Gordon Baldwin. Sorry about that confusion. But the point about Escalante was not that he did not bring with him to the conference the original signed confession of Cuesta but rather he did not even have a photocopy of it with him. (My sources advise me that DGI possessed photocopiers at least by 1995.) The alleged signed Cuesta confession was an important development. Strange that Escalante would mention it without having a photocopy with it. Moreover when Winslow pressed him for it (he could have always mailed it to him) Escalante stone-walled. So Mr. Charles-Dunne's point that Escalante would not be carrying such documents with him is really no response to his stone-walling.

I wonder what Mr. Charles-Dunne would say of me (or anyone else for that matter) if I claimed to have a signed confession of one of the conspirators but refused to produce it? I think that is a fairly good test of one's credibility. And therefore the point becomes why would Escalante lie about that?

Fair points to raise, Tim. However, as I tried to point out, I think there are two issues here. The first is why Escalante showed up without a copy of this damning document. I think it highly specious to expect him, or anyone in the intelligence game, to carry around such documents on a "just-in-case-the-topic-is-raised" basis. The second point is why Escalante hasn't provided such a document to those who may have requested it. Here I think you're on far stronger footing, because if such a document exists, and if the Cubans wish to have the point of view they presented at the conference taken seriously, then they really should have followed through with providing it to someone affiliated with that conference.

However, as to "what I would say of you" if you claimed something but refused to provide evidence for it, I'm so glad you raised this point. I recall that the better part of a year ago, you claimed to have news reports from the early 1960s illustrating that Castro was prepared to blow up New York City, if he thought it necessary or expedient. When asked to provide same to the Forum membership, you said that it was simply a matter of typing what you had downloaded, and that you would get to it as soon as you could do so. That was in April of last year, and despite being needled by myself and several other Forum members, you've yet to make good on that promise. Per your comments re: Escalante, can we take your failure to meet your own voluteered obligation as a sign that you have failed your own above-cited "credibility test," and should we as a result reach the same conclusion about you that you have reached about Escalante, that you, too, have "lied?"

Moreover, as was made clear at the conference, Escalante and the other Cubans were there on an "unofficial" basis, as they clearly stated, and Cuba has access-to-docs protocols that aren't much different from any other country. Perhaps if Winslow would like to follow up on that, he might actually obtain what is missing, but one doubts that he's put much effort into that pursuit. Far easier to simply say that he asked for something once and never received it. Whereas we asked dozens of times for your news reports about Castro's plot on NYC, all to no avail.

A few days ago Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

I will withhold judgement on the flick until having watched it, but the advance data we've seen floated thus far doesn't give one much reason to expect it will solve anything

But yesterday he started a rather major attack on "Rendezvous with Death".

Not at all. You said that it was your hope Forum members would view the film with an open mind. I simply provided some background details on those of questionable veracity who played a role in the film's production, or whose so-called "evidence" was presented in the film as credible when we already know that it is not credible, since it's merely retooled rubbish of old, dressed in a newer frock. That's hardly a "major attack."

One of the bases for his attacks was casting doubt on the report by Marty Underwood that Win Scot was aware of a report that Fabian escalante had been in Dallas the day of the assassination.

Specifically Robert wrote:

Again we see the hand of Gus Russo - he of the fictitious Pulitzer nomination - proferring what we already know is fraudulent "evidence" from the last time it was debunked, by the ARRB.

Now I have admitted there were reported problems with Underwood's credibility. But that does not mean that what he said was an outright fabrication. Underwood may have embellished things to increase his credibility but that does not mean the substance of what he said was a fabrication.

Let us take an analogy. Everyone knows that Nosenko fibbed about his bona fides. Those "fibs" (lies) do not mean that whatever else he said was a lie. If they did, we could use those fibs then to PROVE LHO was a KGB agent, since Nosenko's denial of such status must have been a lie.

Unless Robert is prepared to accept that everything Nosenko said about Oswald was a lie, he must be willing to admit that people do "stretch the truth" to increase the plausability of their stories but such incidents do not prove that the underlying story is false.

Tim, I think you're comparing apples and pomegranites here. We know that the Underwood notes are not what they were represented to be when presented to the ARRB by Gus Russo. What we don't know is who got the story wrong: Underwood, Russo or both. However, what we now do know is that:

** many of the things Russo reported to the ARRB that Underwood told him were directly denied by Underwood in his ARRB interviews;

** Underwood declined to testify under oath;

** between his denials to the ARRB, and his admission that the notes were written nearly three decades after Underwood apparently claimed they had been, Russo had every reason to suspect the veracity of the notes' contents;

** despite the fact that Russo has known for years that Underwood's notes were not contemporaneous [as he claims he was led to believe by Underwood], and that Underwood himself told the ARRB this fact, Russo nevertheless used them to advance his unproven theory in this film anyway, a fact that hardly speaks highly for his ethics or integrity, irrespective of whether Underwood initially misled him.

I would note also from your comments above that you claim Underwood was merely puffing up his own importance, without seeming to consider two important corollary points: that such exaggeration should call Underwood's veracity into question [which you artfully attempt to avoid doing, instead trying to rehabilitate him], and that perhaps it was Russo who oversold the import of the notes to the ARRB because it was in his personal interest to exaggerate the truth. As I suggested, whether Underwood lied to Russo, or Russo lied to the ARRB, or whether it was all just a giant misunderstanding, it doesn't augur well for whatever evidentiary value the notes might purport to represent.

Moreover, we do not know if "Rendezvous with Death" discovered other evidence (independent of Underwood's story) of a report that Escalante was in Dallas.

It appears that somebody has made some claims about Escalante that he has denied. Once we've seen the flick, perhaps we'll be able to better determine who is telling the truth, if anyone has.

I note that George seemed to find the film plausible.

I think we need to see the film before we try to pick it apart. I also think when it does arrive in the US, it should be viewed with an open mind by those who doubt Cuban involvement in the assassination.

Finally, Robert continually ridicules Russo's credibility by raising the issue whether "Live By the Sword" was ever nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. I will attempt to clarify how this apparent error arose.

There is no "issue" over "whether "LBTS" was ever nominated for a Pulitzer Prize." It wasn't. However, that didn't stop the false claim from being made in the blurbs on the dust cover of his subsequent literary doorstop. Had this arisen accidentally, one would think Russo himself would have corrected this misinterpretation and prevented the fiction from being repeated on the cover of his subsequent book. This is no innocent "error." This is a man knowingly trading on an outright fabrication because he thinks it will bolster his credibility in a way his own literary output never will. Wrong, wrong and wrong. It is remarkable how lenient, understanding and forgiving Tim Gratz can be when rationalizing the fabrications and lies of the Underwoods and Russos of this world [they are worthy of attempted rehabilitation], those whom he uses to justify his Castro-did-it fantasies, and how differently he reacts towards other authors whose credility is called into question by Tim Gratz due to a single error [a point he made about Peter Dale Scott.]

I note however that he has never to my knowledge located a single error in the book, not one.

Let's see if you think this is an error: "Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed John Kennedy." Seems to me we both agree that this is untrue.

[Chris Cox]

Recently mentioned an Antulio Ramirez Ortiz, hijacker of first plane to Cuba on May 1 1961. He claimed (not sure date the claims FIRST made) that he saw files in Cuba that indicated: Soviet intel interested in using LHO even tho' he's an "emotional adventurer"; that Marina was instructed to come to US by USSR.

ARO also claimed to have given the Swiss Embassy negatives of photos made by Russian (stolen from the Russians' apt) whom Castro approached, to stage an offensive directed at US with intent to engage USSR and US. USSR found out, became enraged at Castro and Russian was deported. By that time the Swiss rec'd the negs via regular mail. Later when ARO was released in Cuba he went personally to Swiss, (Abel Eddlehoffer rings bell but files aren't nearby) they tired of his presence and showed him the door. ARO's objective was to get this info to DC/JFK and Swiss failed to do this in his view ignored compelling evidence that Castro was up to no good and the President's life was in danger. Cuban DGI names associated with this episode are: Valdes, Aquiles, Torres.

CIA did analysis and translation and the claims came back with most elements deemed reliable. The HSCA took testimony fr. ARO and in the end rejected this evidence on basis that a prisoner wouldn't have this kind of access, that Cuban state security would have kept such info out of reach.

My question for viewers of this film-- does this story sound like what is coming out in this film? Any names above appear in film?

[Tim Gratz]

Re Larry's post and Robert's:

It ought to be clear that as interested as we all are in any new information in the documentary, we will need to wait until it airs to be able to assess which information is new and the credibility of that information. Certainly we would appreciate any advance comments George or any others who have seen the film can provide.

One point re Robert's post:

I wrote:

I note however that [Robert] has never to my knowledge located a single error in the book, not one.

Robert replied:

Let's see if you think this is an error: "Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed John Kennedy." Seems to me we both agree that this is untrue.

A good point, Robert. Of course I agree with you on this point. I was, however, refering to errors of fact made in Russo's book rather than errors in his conclusions and opinions. In other words, I am aware of no evidence that he included a factual assertion not supported by a reference to a primary source. It is clear from the book that his conclusion that Oswald alone shot Kennedy is his interpretation and opinion of the facts. Here I would contrast Russo's book with Mellen's which seems replete with factual errors.

Finally, I would note that Russo's book suggests the possibility that Cubans at least encouraged Oswald whereas the movie apparently claims that Cubans actually paid Oswald to shoot Kennedy. As I noted in my earlier post, I doubt it was quite that simple. Clearly, I think, there was Mafia involvement and no scenario about the assassination can be complete which ignores the role of Ruby. I think the nexus was Trafficante. And I think the book that best spells it out is "Crime of the Century" by Professor Michael Kurtz.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[James Richards]

The man Oswald contacted in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico was described as a dark man with reddish hair. According to Marino the man’s name was Cesar Morales Mesa. (George Bollschweiler)

Does anyone know if this is the same man as Cesar Moralles Meza, aka 'El Pelirrojo'?

James

[George Bollschweiler]

The man Oswald contacted in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico was described as a dark man with reddish hair. According to Marino the man’s name was Cesar Morales Mesa. (George Bollschweiler)

Does anyone know if this is the same man as Cesar Moralles Meza, aka 'El Pelirrojo'?

James

James,

it is César Morales Meza aka 'El Pelirrojo' he was identified by Oscar Marino.

George

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote (re the alleged confession of Tony Cuesta):

The second point is why Escalante hasn't provided such a document to those who may have requested it. Here I think you're on far stronger footing, because if such a document exists, and if the Cubans wish to have the point of view they presented at the conference taken seriously, then they really should have followed through with providing it to someone affiliated with that conference.

.

With the release of "Rendezvous With Death" implicating Cuba in the assassination now would certainly be an appropriate time for Cuba to release the "confession" of Cuesta if it exists . (Although Ron had raised a good point about the legitimacy of a "signed confession" of a blind man (how would he know what he was signing?).

If no such confession exists, that speaks volumes re Escalante's credibility. It also raises the most intriguing question why Cuba lied about it. Hmmm.