Rendezvous w/Death

[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

James,

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

George

Thanks, George. Most interesting.

James

[Tim Gratz]

Well, James, don't leave us hanging in suspense. What can you tell us about César Morales Meza aka 'El Pelirrojo' that makes it "most interesting"?

[James Richards]

Well, James, don't leave us hanging in suspense. What can you tell us about César Morales Meza aka 'El Pelirrojo' that makes it "most interesting"?

Unfortunately, Tim, nothing that can be proved and I know how you hate speculation.

Let's just say that I have heard the names David Atlee Phillips and 'El Pelirrojo' in the same sentence.

James

[John Simkin]

It is interesting that in the UK you can only get anything about the assassination of JFK published unless you say Oswald did it alone or he did it on the orders of Fidel Castro. (This was not the case until recent years.)

Fidel Castro has always been accused of ordering assassinations that were really the responsibility of the CIA. For example, see the articles written by William F. Buckley after the assassination of Orlando Letelier.

Of course Castro had no motive for wanting JFK dead. In fact, because of the negotiations via William Attwood, he had every reason to want to keep JFK alive. If Castro did have agents in Dallas their role would have been to try and prevent the assassination.

The other major problem with this theory is why would LBJ order the FBI to cover-up Castro’s involvement in the assassination? Was the Warren Commission stacked with Castro sympathizers? Since 1959 the American government had been trying to illegally overthrow Castro’s government. We are asked to believe that in 1963 that the FBI/CIA had strong evidence that Castro had ordered the assassination of JFK. Why was this evidence not revealed to the world in 1963? Who would have complained if the US had sent in the troops to arrest Castro for this crime? If that was being too aggressive, why not present the information to the Security Council of the United Nations? LBJ does none of these things. Instead, he apparently orders the FBI and the Warren Commission to cover up Castro’s role in the assassination. How can any sane, logical person, believe such nonsense?

A final thought. Tim Gratz continually accuses Castro of showing barbarity towards his own dissents. (I also disagree with his use of capital punishment but then again, I am consistent about this, I also disapprove of its use in other countries, including the United States.) Yet, Castro catches Cubella plotting his assassination. He confesses but unlike other Cuban dissents he is not executed. Nor is he imprisoned for life. Instead he is released and allowed to go and live in Spain. Very strange.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Of course Castro had no motive for wanting JFK dead.

Other than the fact that JFK's brother was actively working to kill him! (See "Ultimate Sacrifice"; "A Farewell to Justice" and the "Rendezvous with Death" interview with Cubela.) John keeps forgetting these little things.

And how about the fact that RFK was actively organizing a "palace coup" to oust Castro from leadership in Cuba?

Castro had every right to conclude, as Lisa Howard did, that the peace initiatives were nothing but a sham to buy time while the Kennedys plotted his death.

John wrote:

The other major problem with this theory is why would LBJ order the FBI to cover-up Castro’s involvement in the assassination? Was the Warren Commission stacked with Castro sympathizers? Since 1959 the American government had been trying to illegally overthrow Castro’s government. We are asked to believe that in 1963 that the FBI/CIA had strong evidence that Castro had ordered the assassination of JFK. Why was this evidence not revealed to the world in 1963? Who would have complained if the US had sent in the troops to arrest Castro for this crime? If that was being too aggressive, why not present the information to the Security Council of the United Nations? LBJ does none of these things. Instead, he apparently orders the FBI and the Warren Commission to cover up Castro’s role in the assassination. How can any sane, logical person, believe such nonsense?

John, it is clear from the tapes that LBJ ordered the cover-up because he feared that exposure of Castro involvement would lead to a nuclear war. That is how he persuaded Earl Warren to head the Warren Commission. (Good thing he did; would have been rather ridiculous to call it the Warren Commission without Warren on it! ) I assume you would consider Warren a sane, logical person. There is no record that Warren suggested that Johnson simply present the evidence of Cuban involvement to the Security Council. What you are saying may seem logical from the perspective of forty years, but it is not what was going on at the time. It is clear, as the "Rendezvous With Death" interview with former FBI agent Keenan makes clear that both the FBI and the CIA ordered their agents in Mexico City to cease any investigation that would demonstrate Cuban involvement in the assassination. It may not seem logical to you, John, but that is what happened. You cannot argue with history.

John wrote:

Yet, Castro catches Cubella plotting his assassination. He confesses but unlike other Cuban dissents he is not executed. Nor is he imprisoned for life. Instead he is released and allowed to go and live in Spain. Very strange.

Hmm. Perrhaps, John, just perhaps, what I and many others suspect about Cubela is right: that he was an agent provocateur reporting to Castro.

Perhaps this makes LBJ's failure to go to the Security Council a bit more understandable and logical. Perhaps neither LBJ nor RFK wanted to give Castro the platform to allow Cubela to testify that a high-ranking officer in the CIA had assured him that Robert F. Kennedy was encouraging him to kill Castro. That might not have made the US look too good in the eyes of the world. Indeed, it would have made Castro's action understandable.

Unfortunately, john, you cannot escape the demonstrable facts that in the fall of 1963 the US, with the blessing of the Kennedys, were: a) increasing acts of sabotage against Cuba (clear acts of war); plotting the violent death of Castro; and c) plotting his downfall in a coup.

"Ultimate Sacrifice" suggests at least that Che Guevera was the designated coup leader. What if he was, but he also remained loyal to Castro? He would have then been a second witness that the US was encouraging him to kill Castro.

The revelation that the US was actively plotting the murder of a foreign head of state would, of course, have rightfully destroyed all credibility of the United States and might have changed the course of the Cold War. It was a deadly secret that had to be covered-up. Covered-up. Got it? The US could not afford a full inquiry into the death of JFK. That was not in the interest of the US, of LBJ, of RFK.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

It is interesting that in the UK you can only get anything about the assassination of JFK published unless you say Oswald did it alone or he did it on the orders of Fidel Castro. (This was not the case until recent years.)

Fidel Castro has always been accused of ordering assassinations that were really the responsibility of the CIA. For example, see the articles written by William F. Buckley after the assassination of Orlando Letelier.

Of course Castro had no motive for wanting JFK dead. In fact, because of the negotiations via William Attwood, he had every reason to want to keep JFK alive. If Castro did have agents in Dallas their role would have been to try and prevent the assassination.

The other major problem with this theory is why would LBJ order the FBI to cover-up Castro’s involvement in the assassination? Was the Warren Commission stacked with Castro sympathizers? Since 1959 the American government had been trying to illegally overthrow Castro’s government. We are asked to believe that in 1963 that the FBI/CIA had strong evidence that Castro had ordered the assassination of JFK. Why was this evidence not revealed to the world in 1963? Who would have complained if the US had sent in the troops to arrest Castro for this crime? If that was being too aggressive, why not present the information to the Security Council of the United Nations? LBJ does none of these things. Instead, he apparently orders the FBI and the Warren Commission to cover up Castro’s role in the assassination. How can any sane, logical person, believe such nonsense?

A final thought. Tim Gratz continually accuses Castro of showing barbarity towards his own dissents. (I also disagree with his use of capital punishment but then again, I am consistent about this, I also disapprove of its use in other countries, including the United States.) Yet, Castro catches Cubella plotting his assassination. He confesses but unlike other Cuban dissents he is not executed. Nor is he imprisoned for life. Instead he is released and allowed to go and live in Spain. Very strange.

This is it. Krushchev has already placed himself in a position where he must follow through. There would have been no way for him except to accept the US moral authority on this. He had already declared his position right at the beginning.

No doubt there will be pro 'Cuba-did-it'ists who will attempt to wrest a semblence of sense into the scenario by suggesting further absurdities.

LBJ had no reason not to do as John suggests.

_________

This is why this must be considered in the context of Bush's paper on Cuba destabilisation, and subsequent laws 'legitimising' same, which advocates a broad funding of any groups that will generate anti Cuba sentiments. In this case it touches on the assassination of Kennedy which is a subject that offers opportunities to 'turn' individuals. Therefore the point is not an aim to tell the truth or to proiduce any evidence but rather to 'get it out there'. Get it talked about, and get it commented upon in the main press and thus affect opinion in broader sections of society in future attempts against Cuba.

It mirrors pre Iraq BS. One can even see tastes of McArthy, COINTELPRO and other CIA/FBI, right wing machinations.

This propaganda attempt is using this particular medium and the forum to further disseminate this for purposes that have nothing to do with 'who killed Kennedy?'.

(Perhaps it's incidental that it serves to distract once again from the true culprits. This seems to happen on an irregular basis, but appears to be in response to drifts to other areas.)

[Tim Gratz]

John Dolva, how do you respond to my Post #50?

[John Dolva]

Tim, you're basing your arguments on further absurdities comprehensively dealt with elsewhere.

The last paragraph is a take I haven't come across before. 'An assassination attempt on a foreign leader would be have destroyed all US (ruling class) credibitlity?' Hmmm...interesting. You may be right there...

[George Bollschweiler]

Hi Larry, hope to give you some answers below:

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?

There are two incoming phone calls to the Cuban Embassy (around 15:00h on the 22th,63) that where recorded by the CIA.

A girl named Luisa talks to one of her friends about the assassination of Kennedy. Both are very exited as if the were given a birthday present. The caller says that even the President’s brother and his wife were injured.

Later that day (about 17:30h) a man calls the Embassy and the same girl, Luisa, seems to be a kind of receptionist, talks to him and he gives her the latest news about Oswald.

The second tape recording is a conversation between Senior Valdez from the Cuban Embassy in Mexico and El Presidente, who is concerned about Silvia Duran’s statement that she did witness

Oswald receiving 6500$. Valdez says no no, that they were investigating what personal and sexual relation Duran and Oswald had. When he was asked what way Duran was tortured, Valdez says that she was tied up and beaten. The interrogation was led by Gutiérrez Barrios.

Huismann claims that the Oswald file form the Mexicans contains over 4000 pages but he was only allowed to see about 30. Later a second access to the archive was denied.

The only new information I found interesting is about that Cuban intelligence officer who was described as a black guy with reddish hair who Marino identifies as César Morales Meza aka 'El Pelirrojo'. Again Escalante laughs when asked about this individual and says blacks have black hair and that he would never employ a person with such a conspicuous look.

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

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

No. Huismann’s main source is Oscar Marino. Marino only talks to Huismann while cursing around in a car in Mexico (Mexico-City?). He says that Oswald was disenchanted and that he even brought up the idea to kill Kennedy but it is never clear if Marino did actually meet Lee or not. The only one who admits having met with Oswald is Helena Gerra de Paz, she is the woman who claims that Silvia Duran had contact to Lee outside the embassy.

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.

Oscar Marino interview took place in Mexico, where he actually lives is not revealed. The second man he gets some information Antulio Ramirez seems to live in Mexico as well.

The meeting with the informant of the FSB is nicely set in the Austrian mountains. The person just reads from a sheet of paper that Huismann said its from the old KGB archive. This is the KGB cable to the Cuban intelligence where they give order to observe Oswald after his return to the States and that the KGB has to be kept informed.

Escalante says that while he was attending a conference in Moscow 1994 he spoke to the director of the KGB archives and was informed that some American scientists were working for the archive and this might have been an opportunity for the CIA to place such an information into the archive.

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.

No, and that is the reason Huismann gets already criticised by various media.

...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..

Not yet and I doubt that he ever will.

George

Edited January 10, 2006 by George Bollschweiler

[Tim Gratz]

John Dolva wrote:

"Tim, you're basing your arguments on further absurdities comprehensively dealt with elsewhere"

This is what you call "ducking" the issue.

To which "absurdidities" do you refer, Johm? That the US was trying to murder Castro? If that is what you refer, it is a fact, not an absurdity.

[John Dolva]

Tim, the issues you raise are dealt well with elsewhere by others. On the whole they are shown to be absurd or based on further absurdities. I'm not going to nitpick particulars.

The sole comment I personally made about your post is re assassination of foreign leaders to which there is no response. THAT is ducking the issue.

[John Simkin]

John, it is clear from the tapes that LBJ ordered the cover-up because he feared that exposure of Castro involvement would lead to a nuclear war. That is how he persuaded Earl Warren to head the Warren Commission.

This is not only information that is found on the tapes. LBJ told all his friends that is why he was covering up the Castro connection. However, that does not make it true. In 1963, no one with any understanding of the Cold War would have really thought that the Soviets would have taken part in a nuclear war if the US invaded Cuba. It was the same reason why the Soviets knew that the US would not go to war when they invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 (although CIA agents constantly told East European dissents that this was going to happen). It was called “sphere of interest”. It was an agreement that the two superpowers could do what they liked in their own backyard. LBJ knew that the Soviets would never go to war over Cuba.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

(1) Why did LBJ fail to present the evidence he had against Castro to the United Nations? (Like Bush did over Iraq). As with Bush, he could then have issued an ultimatum claiming that if the UN did not take action, the US would invade Cuba.

(2) If LBJ was afraid of invading Cuba as a result of Castro assassinating the president of the US because it would have triggered a nuclear war, why did he not have that fear when he started bombing Vietnam, a communist country close to the borders of China (a country that was much more likely to resort to a nuclear attack on the US).

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

"In 1963, no one with any understanding of the Cold War would have really thought that the Soviets would have taken part in a nuclear war if the US invaded Cuba."

Of course the Russian missiles being placed in Cuba were merely for aesthetics (they would look good among the palm trees). And all the Russian soldiers in Cuba were just there to enjoy the tropical weather, after having endured so many Russian winters.

And of course when during the Cuba missile crisis the leaders of the Kennedy government wondered if they would live to see another day, that was merely because they had no "understanding of the Cold War". John's understanding that the Russians would not have defended Cuba in fact rewrites the entire history of the Cold War, and particularly the CMC. No one in that era was willing to risk operating on an assumption that Russia would not defend Cuba.

(1) In response to your Question #1 I think it is well answered in my Post #50. Had we gone forward with evidence against Castro, Castro could have proven numerous US attempts to kill him, which would have destroyed the US credibility around the world. With all our efforts to kill Castro, what moral authority did we have if he (finally) answered in kind? What is the saying: Turn-about is fair play?

(2) In response to Question #2 perhaps one answer is that the Chicoms lacked nuclear weapon delivery systems.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[George Bollschweiler]

'Tim Gratz' date='Jan 10 2006, 05:38 AM'

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.

Tim

I know you must sit on hot plates concerning Huismann film because it deals with the subject your most interested in but don’t expect too much. After re-watching the documentary again last night I got the impression that even the film does point to a Cuban involvement it is a kind of open question how much support Oswald actually got (if any) and how much the Cubans really relied on this operation. Remember

Oscar Marino says when asked why Oswald: ”We needed people, I mean to have someone in the States” or “ He hated his country and he was available” . Did the Cubans really have such problems to recruit people

to export their revolution?

To someone who has just general knowledge of the assassination the film suggests that Oswald was the driving force behind it and the Cubans just took advantage of his political ideology and used him. But there is not one single word of any direct or indirect assistance except the $ 6500 story that is not proven yet. So the Cubans knew about it and were just leaning back to see what will happen.

I’m sure the film will be ripped to pieces by most members of the research community.

George

Edited January 10, 2006 by George Bollschweiler

[Tim Gratz]

George it should be clear that my opinions about what happened differ in some cases significantly from the film. For one thing, as I noted in a previous post, any asssassination scenario is incomplete if it does not factor in the role of Jack Ruby, the only person we can be sure was part of the conspiracy.

I think the clearest indication of Cuban involvement may be the journey of Miguel Casas Saez who entered the US under a false name on September 26, 1963 and returned to Cuba immediately after the assassination.

Plus the possible presence of Escalante in Dallas if the film presents solid new evidence on that issue.

I agree with you that the Cubans had their own agents in the US but if Oswald was indeed pro-Cuban they probably needed Americans. On the other hand I believe LHO was set up as a patsy precisely because he had been pegged as an agent of US intelligence. "Ultimate Sacrifice" suggests he may have been involved in the latest CIA plot to kill Castro. What ultimate irony to use him as the patsy for the assassination of JFK.

I suspect there may be valuable new information in "Rendezvous With Death" but I doubt there is a "smoking gun".

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

George, by the way, we all appreciate your input on the film. Thanks!

Any views on the reaction in Europe to the film? Any idea what kind of audience it achieved?

Edited January 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz