Rendezvous w/Death

[George Bollschweiler]

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.

Tim

I know the film has nothing to do with your take on -Castro did it – it only points to the Cubans but that’s about it.

The source of Escalante in Dallas is Martin Underwood and the presented letter or I’d better call it a note does not look very persuading and is no news.

Concerning the media reactions over here it looks as if many who jumped onto the propaganda train jump off already. I did read an interview today given by Huismann to a German newspaper and it was obvious to me that apart from his Mexico story his knowledge seems to be limited. Unfortunately most journalists do not ask the right questions and I think that Huismann will avoid those who might do.

George

[Larry Hancock]

Thank you George, that really clears up things a good deal - most helpful!!

In general it seems that the documentary is largely resurfacing information known

for quite some time....some of it as questionable as Durans remarks being

tortured (which most of us would consider pretty questionable, especially once

you read all the CIA memoranda essentially egging on the DFS to do anything

necessary to get anything from her they can). Even among all those memoranda

there is nothing that I'm awere of that relates her describing Oswald getting paid

in the basement? As to the tapes, all old news there.

It would be no surprise that the Soviets advised the Cubans about Oswald, Nagell

told Dick Russell long ago that they were worried about Oswald being used to

create negative propaganda against them. And it would be no shock to turn up

some DGI contact with Oswald in MC given that he was very likely being "dangled"

to them for just that purpose. However all that is a far cry from the claim or

PR impression that he was somehow working as a paid agent for the Cubans in

the assassination.

If something new does emerge from this it will be interesting but for the moment it

appears more like just another "tabloid" media strike which helps to dilute attention

to any serious findings which don't go for the big headline.

-- Larry

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

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Thank you George, that really clears up things a good deal - most helpful!!

In general it seems that the documentary is largely resurfacing information known

for quite some time....some of it as questionable as Durans remarks being

tortured (which most of us would consider pretty questionable, especially once

you read all the CIA memoranda essentially egging on the DFS to do anything

necessary to get anything from her they can). Even among all those memoranda

there is nothing that I'm awere of that relates her describing Oswald getting paid

in the basement? As to the tapes, all old news there.

You are correct, Larry: Duran said no such thing. If the film stipulates otherwise, it is yet another reason to suspect the quality of material being presented.

Interestingly, we have Alvarado insisting on November 25 that he witnessed this $6,500 payment made to "Oswald" by a tall, black, red-haired Cuban, but that this took place on a date when Oswald was clearly not even in Mexico. Alvarado then recanted his fairy tale when confronted with this discrepancy, before recanting his recantation and restating his original tale was true.

However, in the interim, rather than abandon this self-evident lie, shortly thereafter CIA located another person - Pedro Gutierrez - prepared to tell the same lie, and put it into the right time frame on the calendar.

Pray tell, just how many people were witness to this transaction? Did Cuban intelligence make it a habit to conduct its plotting to murder foreign leaders only when there was a large audience around? How did Alvarado know the amount being paid to "Oswald" totalled $6,500? Was it counted out in his presence? Did the red-haired black man announce the amount "Oswald" was being paid to commit the murder that Alvarado claimed he had heard mentioned? And, having heard a murder plot discussed in the Cuban Embassy, did Alvarado - or Gutierrez - immediately alert the authorities of the plans? No. They waited until after the murder, then claimed to have recognized Oswald as the receipient of the money.

That this long-since debunked nonsense is once again rearing its head among the other CIA detritus from Mexico City indicates the film is intended strictly for an under-informed audience. And/or made by under-informed film-makers, a weakness that somebody like Russo could well exploit for his own purposes.

It would be no surprise that the Soviets advised the Cubans about Oswald, Nagell

told Dick Russell long ago that they were worried about Oswald being used to

create negative propaganda against them. And it would be no shock to turn up

some DGI contact with Oswald in MC given that he was very likely being "dangled"

to them for just that purpose. However all that is a far cry from the claim or

PR impression that he was somehow working as a paid agent for the Cubans in

the assassination.

Thank you. Had the Soviets not thought Oswald worthy of recruitment, I doubt they'd recommend him to the Cubans. As you point out, if anything, they'd wish to warn the Cubans to stay away from him, which seems to be what transpired, CIA's best efforts to suggest the contrary notwithstanding.

It is remarkable that those gullible enough to believe the CIA-authored Castro-did-it bushwah never seem puzzled that Cuban agent Oswald was denied a visa to visit Cuba. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if I'm Castro, and I know Oswald is going to kill the President for me, I'm going to make one of two things happen once the goal has been achieved: Oswald either makes it to Havana where I can keep him under wraps, or he dies. So, which Castro agent ensured that Oswald would never make it to Havana by denying him a visa, and which Castro agent killed Oswald to keep secret the identity of his sponsor, Castro?

If something new does emerge from this it will be interesting but for the moment it

appears more like just another "tabloid" media strike which helps to dilute attention

to any serious findings which don't go for the big headline.

Amen, brother.

-- Larry

[Tim Gratz]

It is my understanding that within the last week the Miami Spanish TV station had a panel of commentators on "Rendezvous with Death" and that the participants included Felix Rodriguez and Antonio Veciana.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

It is my understanding that within the last week the Miami Spanish TV station had a panel of commentators on "Rendezvous with Death" and that the participants included Felix Rodriguez and Antonio Veciana.

I would think that Treefrog and the South Florida Research Group - and / or Gordon Winslow would have this covered. I'd like to read a transcript of this, if it indeed took place.

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[Tim Gratz]

I talked to Gordon about it. He was the one who confirmed the program for me. But he did not watch it himself. He is not fluent in Spanish (nor am I). Speaking Spanish now should be a requirement for anyone living in South Florida.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[George Bollschweiler]

I talked to Gordon about it. He was the one who confirmed the program for me. But he did not watch it himself. He is not fluent in Spanish (nor am I). Speaking Spanish now should be a requirement for anyone living in South Florida.

Más importante sería, si el presidente Bush hablaría mechor el inglés.

Jorge

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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

This is an interesting point. In his questioning of CIA's Barney Hidalgo, HSCA counsel Goldsmith asked many specific questions about this red-headed black Cuban, referred to as Ernesto, and seemed to believe his real name was Andres Armona. Apparently, there was no shortage of tall, red-haired black Cubans.

Edited January 15, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[James Richards]

In his questioning of CIA's Barney Hidalgo, HSCA counsel Goldsmith asked many specific questions about his red-headed black Cuban, referred to as Ernesto, and seemed to believe his real name was Andres Armona. (Robert Charles-Dunne)

Robert,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Armona one of the official personnel working at the Cuban Embassy?

James

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

In his questioning of CIA's Barney Hidalgo, HSCA counsel Goldsmith asked many specific questions about this red-headed black Cuban, referred to as Ernesto, and seemed to believe his real name was Andres Armona. (Robert Charles-Dunne)

Robert,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Armona one of the official personnel working at the Cuban Embassy?

James

According to CIA, he was:

Document # 104-10015-10200 is a 5 page cable from L. F. Barker to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/27/63.

"1. Two station officers interviewed Alverado in safehouse again night 26 November with following results. 2. Subj story remained substantially same as in ref. Subj recognized photos of Cuban embassy personnel Silvia Duran, Francisco Llagostera, Orestes Ruiz, Samuel Perez, Rogelio Rodriguez, Raul Aparicio, Rolando Esteva, Herberto Jorrin, Oscar Conception, Antonio Garcia, Jose Fernandez Roa, andres Armona, Joaquin Hernandez Armas, "Raul", Pereguina Alonso, Luisa Calderon, and Alfredo Mirabal.

Did not know names of any but knew by sight and gave partial descriptions such as duties, height, skin coloring, condition of teeth, disposition. accent, etc. not discernable from photos."

It appears that the initial intent was to implicate a Cuban embassy official as the payoff man passing cash to Oswald. There seems to have been a change in that plan, which now fingers another man in the film.

[Jefferson Morley]

Thanks to Gus Russo, I have seen “Rendezvous with Death.”

I think the film represents a big step forward in the clarification of the JFK assassination story. This is not to say that its central thesis—that the Castro government encouraged and assisted Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the American president—is necessarily correct. The unknown identity of “Oscar Marino” and “Reynoso” two of the most important sources of the film, prevents definitive judgment. The very interesting testimony of three other key sources in the film—Sam Halpern, Larry Keenan and Rolando Cubela—allows for different conclusions.

The Huismann Russo film is a step forward because it corroborates emerging consensus of JFK assassination researchers around some key points.

Huissman and Russo are surely correct that the motivation for the assassination originated in the struggle for power in Cuba.

They are surely correct that the CIA missed (or failed to report what it knew of) Oswald’s contacts with pro-Castro Cubans in Mexico City six weeks before the assassination and that this failure help enable Oswald to proceed to Dealey Plaza unmolested.

And they are surely correct that the records of the Mexican DFS are a key source for understanding Oswald’s visit to Mexico City that has never been tapped. Hopefully, public attention to this film will force these documents onto the public record. Huissman says that he only saw 40 pages of a 4,500 page archive.

My problem with the film is that its indictment of Castro’s government, if recast as assessment of the Central Intelligence Agency, would be describing the single worst U.S. intelligence failure between Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11. From a less prosecutorial perspective, the film’s thesis that Castro aided Oswald is as devastating to the CIA as to the Cuban leader.

Oswald’s suspicious pro-Castro activities in New Orleans in August 1963 were documented by an intelligence network reporting to Miami station psychological warfare chief, George Joannides. At that time, Carlos Bringuier, who appears in the film, called for Oswald to be investigated by the federal government. Joannides apparently failed to report Bringueir's suspicions to CIA headquarters.

Oswald’s contacts with Cubans in Mexico City a few weeks later in September and October 1963 were the responsibility of David Phillips, the chief of Cuban operations in the Western Hemisphere and the officer in charge of the LIENVOY program surveilling the Cuban diplomatic offices. Phillips apparently failed to discern Oswald's contacts.

The film’s key allegations—that Oswald had contact with and received money from pro-Castro Cubans in Mexico City--were investigated by Phillips and his boss Win Scott within days of Kennedy’s murder. Both men soon dismissed the allegations as fabrications.

Joannnides, Phillips and Scott all reported to Dick Helms. All were highly praised for their performance in 1963. If the film is to be believed all failed in their duties to report accurately. This is perhaps believable.

But if the film’s conclusion is to survive scrutiny, the failure of these four men—Helms, Phillips, Scott and Joannides---all of them resolutely dedicated to Castro’s overthrow, must run much deeper. It means that their failure in 1963 has been covered up and the causus belli of a dictator accepted as a fait accompli—for the sake of mere political convenience in Langley. It means that these men, all four of whom received Career Intelligence Medals, the Agency’s highest professional honor, effectively put their own reputations ahead of the U.S. government’s need to fully investigate the crime and protect its leaders from communist assassins--and were honored for it.

What’s more, the film’s conclusion requires us to believe that a government that has never been recognized as legitimate and whose overthrow is still sought by U.S. policy helped perpetrate an act of war on U.S. soil that killed the Commander in Chief--and has never suffered any consequences as a result--not a formal accusation, not a request for clarification, not even a diplomatic note of protest.

Is the world's only superpower and the CIA capable of such craven behavior? I doubt it.

Yes, Kennedy’s assassination was indeed the result of a profound intelligence failure the full dimensions of which are not known. But that the crime of Dallas was the result of CIA intelligence failures that are being hidden along with Castro's complicity, remains, in my view, unproven.

That said, the question of CIA intelligence failure was largely beyond the scope of the film which, understandably, focuses on arguing its thesis. That thesis, offered by credible researchers who have uncovered a lot of new information, deserves to be taken very seriously. The possible release of the Mexican DFS records is very good news. Along with the release of George Joannides’ operational records from 1963, it would be an important step toward decisive clarification of the intelligence failures that lead to JFK's death.

Jeff

[Tim Gratz]

Excellent post by Mr. Morley.

[Chris Cox]

“It means that their failure in 1963 has been covered up and the causus belli of a dictator accepted as a fait accompli—for the sake of mere political convenience in Langley

If the film is to be believed all failed in their duties to report accurately. This is perhaps believable. “

A fair analysis, Jeff.

I called it a conspiracy of silence US/CU, in my presentation in Dallas but maybe it was more a hearty faretheewell “handshake” between our countries. We had long histories too much for the public to swallow at a time of great grief and political complication.

For my family project, researchers at CIA pointed out documents on Antulio, not my researcher buddies. The records are there in the public domain, how I missed them is a wonder.

Antulio recently told me the story about his cellmate in Cuba following hijacking. He claims American cellmate interrogated, poss. executed. CIA identified him as my father for HSCA. HSCA apparently missed, dismissed the relevance. I dig through that old stuff to catch up.

Now, this movie and what are the facts? We need the facts to weigh the claims in this big landscape. The docs, our map.

An American “soldier of misfortune” got left behind for political expediency. Warnings of Dallas went unheeded. We were all supposed to live with that.

True, in the FOIA program we’ve been "Glomar-ed" but to be fair, cryptic comments from Escalante don't help. What is a lie what is truth? Touché that, I guess.

[Pat Speer]

The film’s key allegations—that Oswald had contact with and received money from pro-Castro Cubans in Mexico City--were investigated by Phillips and his boss Win Scott within days of Kennedy’s murder. Both men soon dismissed the allegations as fabrications.

Joannnides, Phillips and Scott all reported to Dick Helms. All were highly praised for their performance in 1963. If the film is to be believed all failed in their duties to report accurately. This is perhaps believable.

But if the film’s conclusion is to survive scrutiny, the failure of these four men—Helms, Phillips, Scott and Joannides---all of them resolutely dedicated to Castro’s overthrow, must run much deeper. It means that their failure in 1963 has been covered up and the causus belli of a dictator accepted as a fait accompli—for the sake of mere political convenience in Langley. It means that these men, all four of whom received Career Intelligence Medals, the Agency’s highest professional honor, effectively put their own reputations ahead of the U.S. government’s need to fully investigate the crime and protect its leaders from communist assassins--and were honored for it.

What’s more, the film’s conclusion requires us to believe that a government that has never been recognized as legitimate and whose overthrow is still sought by U.S. policy helped perpetrate an act of war on U.S. soil that killed the Commander in Chief--and has never suffered any consequences as a result--not a formal accusation, not a request for clarification, not even a diplomatic note of protest.

Is the world's only superpower and the CIA capable of such craven behavior? I doubt it.

Yes, Kennedy’s assassination was indeed the result of a profound intelligence failure the full dimensions of which are not known. But that the crime of Dallas was the result of CIA intelligence failures that are being hidden along with Castro's complicity, remains, in my view, unproven.

That said, the question of CIA intelligence failure was largely beyond the scope of the film which, understandably, focuses on arguing its thesis. That thesis, offered by credible researchers who have uncovered a lot of new information, deserves to be taken very seriously. The possible release of the Mexican DFS records is very good news. Along with the release of George Joannides’ operational records from 1963, it would be an important step toward decisive clarification of the intelligence failures that lead to JFK's death.

Jeff

Since a lone-nut finding would not have been necessary to cover-up the CIA's mistakes--they could have simply claimed they didn't know or didn't have the resources to uncover Oswald's activities--and as the men of the CIA as a rule were committed to overthrowing Castro, it would seem clear that the decision to cover-up Oswald's possible ties to Cuba and head off a possible retaliation against Cuba came from somewhere else. It seems likely they were told by President Johnson himself to cover-up. We must remember that Helms was a Johnson pet. If Helms saw evidence that the military set up Oswald, and told this to Johnson, that might explain a few things... Of course if Helms found evidence showing that it was Somoza and Artime, or the mob for that matter, it may have led to the same result... In my opinion, the suspect that LBJ and the CIA were LEAST LIKELY to cover for was Castro.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I just stumbled across the following review and thought it might be of interest to other Forum members.

It can be found at:

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...details&id=3870

Conspiracies Of Dunces

February 15, 2006

by Ronald Radosh

Everyone loves conspiracy theories, and Europe is no different. First they had the best-selling French book whose author claimed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were covert actions of American intelligence; next there was the Arab world's claim that it was an operation by Israeli intelligence. Now we have a new one - in the form of a much-hyped German television documentary, "Rendezvous With Death," directed by Wilfried Huismann with the help of an American JFK assassination buff named Gus Russo. The film first aired in Germany in January and is now being readied for American distribution.

Ulrich Deppendorf, the director of German television's public broadcasting network, ARD - the equivalent of PBS here - claims the documentary proves that "Lee Harvey Oswald was the final pawn in a murderous feud between Fidel Castro and the Kennedy brothers." This writer would love nothing more than to reveal that the detestable Fidel Castro, one of the hemisphere's few remaining communist dictators and tyrants, had a hand in President Kennedy's murder, using Oswald as a secret top agent of Cuba's G-2, its intelligence arm. Unfortunately, this tendentious and conspiratorial film - blending favored conspiracy theories of both the far left and far right - falls far short of the task.

The 90-minute film offers the following line of argument. Oswald, then a 24-year-old Castro supporter, got his orders in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, where G-2 gave him the job of assassinating the American president. The job was Mr. Castro's retaliation for the CIA's comic and failed attempts to have Mr. Castro killed - from exploding cigars to poison in his food. Those who have not studied the hundreds of assassination books, or had a chance to read Gerald Posner's definitive conspiracy-debunking "Case Closed," might find the film compelling on first viewing.

Over dramatic music, Mr. Huismann presents - for the "first time" of course - tapped phone calls from the Cuban Embassy in Mexico; references to secret KGB documents about Oswald; and alleged former agents from G-2, now in exile in Spain and Mexico. Each says he always knew Oswald was their former agency's pawn. Mr. Huismann also interviews Larry Keenan, a former FBI agent who was sent to investigate in Mexico after Kennedy's death - and quickly called back - as well as a former CIA officer named Sam Halpern, who was involved in the plots to eliminate Mr. Castro in the 1960s. But Mr. Halpern offers nothing to substantiate the film's thesis, merely reiterating familiar stories about the attempts to assassinate Mr. Castro.

Compelling? Hardly. First, the witnesses are all speaking secondhand; not one of them is said to have been involved in running Oswald. Take one charge made by Mr. Huismann. An unidentified but alleged FSB officer, presented in silhouette,reads from what he says is a secret telegram dated July 18, 1962, sent by the KGB (the FSB's predecessor agency) to the Cubans. The gist of the message allegedly supports former G-2 agent Antulio Ramirez's claim that the KGB contacted him to let him know that Oswald had gone back to the United States, and was therefore ready for some unspecified mission. We are offered no proof that such a telegram exists save for Mr. Huismann's source's claim. Likewise, we are told that Oswald's attempt to kill right-wing Major General Edwin Walker in April 1963 - which he fumbled - was a test run by G-2 to see whether he was capable of assassination. Again, not one iota of hard evidence is offered; it's just asserted that the Cubans were involved.

The main evidence offered by Mr. Huismann and writer Gus Russo - their would-be smoking gun - is a document written on White House stationary. It says on the morning of November 22, the day JFK was killed, Fabian Escalante, the head of Cuba's counter intelligence service and a top adviser to Mr. Castro, took off in a small passenger plane to Dallas from Mexico to personally supervise the impending assassination. After Kennedy was dead, Escalante purportedly flew back to Mexico and switched to another plane for his return to Cuba.

Viewers are shown dramatic footage of a small plane, which we are told is "Escalante's plane" and proves nothing. (The claim is the equivalent of someone who says he has proof that then CIA chief of counter intelligence James Angleton had flown into Havana in a small plane to supervise the various attempts to assassinate Mr. Castro.) We are never told how Escalante brazenly managed to fly into Dallas the day of the president's appearance undetected by radar, immigration, or customs, and then direct a covert operation. Mr. Huismann says he got the handwritten memo, which is shown on screen, from a former JFK and LBJ aide, Martin Underwood, who asked that it not be made public until his own death.

Why would Underwood have waited decades to release this document, when for years he was a key proponent of JFK conspiracy theories? The filmmakers do not disclose that Underwood was thoroughly discredited as a fabricator years ago. Max Holland, the author of "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes" (and with whom I watched the new film), blew apart one falsehood this same Underwood had peddled to Seymour Hersh: that in 1960 he was ordered by a JFK aide to follow JFK's one-time mistress, Judith Exner, on a train from Washington, D.C., to Chicago. Moreover, in the late 1990s, when Underwood was asked by U.S. government lawyers from the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) to repeat and document the Exner story and others he had told to the press, Underwood eventually recanted every one of his tall tales.

The final report of the ARRB discussed the very same document that is the centerpiece of the film - i.e., the report of the secret plane trip by Escalante to Dallas to run Oswald. Underwood acknowledged to the board that he had a "lot of extra White House stationary left over from his work with President Johnson," and wrote this particular note in 1992 or 1993 for Hersh's benefit." Yet Mr. Huismann would have us believe it is one of his own exclusive discoveries. It was with good reason the ARRB discarded this uncorroborated, if not absurd, charge, now disingenuously resurrected by Messrs. Huismann and Russo.

Aside from hearsay, careful viewers will note that the dramatic allegations are all unproved. We do not learn that both the CIA and FBI evaluated and found Ramirez's claims to be worthless. A former Cuban archivist says he saw an Oswald-Kennedy dossier, but does not know what was in it. A retired FBI agent, Laurence Keenan, claims to have read Mexican secret service documents proving that a Cuban agent - a black man with red hair - gave Oswald money and helped prepare him for the assassination. On camera, Mr. Keenan claims he was sent to Mexico to investigate but was quickly called back because LBJ wanted Oswald identified as a lone assassin. Why did Johnson call for a cover-up? According to Mr. Keenan, the new president was afraid that telling the truth about Oswald would lead to a third world war. (While Johnson was indeed worried, when he formed the Warren Commission, he told Senator Richard Russell to get the facts, wherever they might lead.)

Mr. Huismann next turns to a former secretary of state, Alexander Haig, who as a young lieutenant colonel worked with the government when the attorney general was hatching plots against Mr. Castro. Mr. Haig notes that Cuba sent the U.S. government warnings that it should stop, or Cuba would act on its own in a similar fashion. According to Mr. Haig, Johnson's cover-up was simply political: No Democrat could ever be elected if the Democratic president was shown to have let Mr. Castro get away with JFK's murder. But Mr. Haig, like LBJ a longtime believer in a Castro conspiracy, has only his opinion to offer - and no evidence of any kind to prove a conspiracy existed.

Mr. Russo, the film's researcher and writer, is a man who has written previously about these events. He has been shown to misconstrue evidence or, as Mr. Holland once wrote, leave out "anything and everything that contradicts his preferred thesis." In that vein, the filmmakers evoke Mr. Keenan's belief that he and the United States "blew it" and failed to follow leads. The implication is that Mr. Keenan, too, thinks G-2 was behind the assassination. The filmmakers do not mention that Mr. Keenan is reported to believe JFK was killed by rogue CIA agents - not by Mr. Castro.

Mr. Huismann's claim that he and Mr. Russo, in their three years of work on the documentary, have "settled the question" and proved that Mr. Castro or G-2 in Havana ordered the assassination is quite simply balderdash. As a recent article in the Mexican weekly Eme-equis shows, nothing the filmmakers turned up in Mexico cements their case for a Cuban-directed conspiracy, and Mexico City is where the alleged conspiracy was hatched. If they don't have the goods there, they don't have the goods at all.

This article appeared in The New York Sun on February 14, 2006.

Ronald Radosh is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; Prof. Emeritus of History at the City University of New York, and the author of many books, including "The Rosenberg File;" "Divided They Fell: The Demise of the Democratic Party, 1964-1996," and most recently, "Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left."