Tosh Plumlee: Timeline

William Plumlee · January 13, 2006

EDIT:: in the other image there seems to be a good indication that at least one person was at the south end of the triple underpass as the Limo was speeding off.
If the person went west "B" from the south parking area and over the RR tracks then our driver, who was at the bottom of the hill "B" leading from the RR tracks, would have seen him, because that is the only location to get to this west muddy parking area from the RR tracks. We would have been right behind him perhaps one minute or two. We would have seen him walking in the area or getting into another near-by car if he had went over the same route Sergio and I had followed.... We did not see anything after the shooting that would cause us to look into this possibility at that time.

It sounds so matter-of-fact when Tosh says, "We did not see anything after the shooting that would cause us to look into this possibility at that time." My understanding is that Tosh and Sergio needed to get their butts out of there, toot sweet! Their sense of what had just transpired was probably more informed, and therefore more immediately fearful, than even Oswald's. Just as the B&W Moorman is like a Rorschach test for the north knoll, Cancellaire is the same for the south knoll. I have seen and cannot dispute a number of images that are potentially valid.

Here's a photo I took from the south side, precisely where John Dolva shows the isolate figure with partical face showing. A perfect straight-on shot. Al Carrier has argued, I believe, that in his view this trajectory best explains Kennedy's headwound and why the rear evulsion would have been on the right rear rather than left:

T.C.

Thanks TC. Good work on the pictures. If you notice in the "black and white" you can see the concrete railing and pillars. (upper right hand side of picture) At the time this picture was taken (just a few seconds after the shots) the area in question is clean. Sergio and I were about eighty feet or so to the left near the south knoll north south sidewalk next the big tree fork shadow. That is another area that is in question where two people are said to be found.

(note; The shadow that looks like legs is really the fork shadow from the tree. If you look close you can see different contrast and light areas which some have said or sholders and heads in the shadow of the tree. Tom Watson before he died was working on this section and the one near the overpass. I was told some years ago that he had found people at these two locations, but wanted to do further photo work.

The second color picture is a very good one as to the "head on shot" from the overpass location and would explain the "cracked winsheld. If you notice there is a slight curve in the road and a slight downward hill the limo was traveling. When considered this would allow a shot from the height of the overpass to pass over the windsheild and hit JFK. Thanks again John D and TC for the good work.

William Plumlee · January 13, 2006

John: I will get what little factual information I know about OPS-40 to you as soon as I have the time to write it up. As you know any detailed organizational matters and the why's and how and who, as to the formation, I would not know. If I did tell you anything in reference to that.., it would only be speculation on my part. That is how operations are or were done on a "need to know bases". I was not at the "planning" level to know those things. Sometimes I was dispatched to members of ops forty as their operational support member. What and why they were doing what they were doing I would not know..., nor would I ask.

Especially interested in the names of the people concerned and any information on individual operations.

John: I'll do my best, but I might not be of much help as to "pin-pointing" the names of all the operatives that were associated with OPS-40. As you know, part of the operation was a spin from the 5412 group. Operatives would come and go as specialized support personal and they were controlled and dispatched by the 40 group which was part of the 5412 group.

In reality there was no covert team named as "Operation 40" that I am aware of and as some have claimed. Liberties have been taken for whatever reasons and 40 has been cast into a different function than what it really was. Some of the operatives that from time to time did launch missions in behalf of the 40 or 5412 were mostly from the "School of The America" and other specialized operational personal and their training commands. Kind of like TDY ( Temp Duty assignments).

As to the mechanics and various operations I can only name about four I was associated with and those are questionable as being dispatched solely by OPS-40 command and cleared by the 5412 Group.

Our Teams were dispatched from the Pentagon with logistical support gave by the CIA. In most cases you could say ".. they were not really "CIA" operations, but in reality Military INTEL OPS with CIA logistical support...".

At any rate the operations were "layered" and numerous "Locks" and "cut-outs" were assigned to protect the knowledge of these operations and the operational personal.

.

Tim Carroll · January 14, 2006

As you know any detailed organizational matters and the why's and how and who, as to the formation, I would not know. If I did tell you anything in reference to that.., it would only be speculation on my part. That is how operations are or were done on a "need to know bases". I was not at the "planning" level to know those things. Sometimes I was dispatched to members of ops forty as their operational support member. What and why they were doing what they were doing I would not know..., nor would I ask.
Especially interested in the names of the people concerned and any information on individual operations.
As you know, part of the operation was a spin from the 5412 group. Operatives would come and go as specialized support personal and they were controlled and dispatched by the 40 group which was part of the 5412 group. In reality there was no covert team named as "Operation 40" that I am aware of and as some have claimed. Liberties have been taken for whatever reasons and 40 has been cast into a different function than what it really was. Some of the operatives that from time to time did launch missions in behalf of the 40 or 5412 were mostly from the "School of The America" and other specialized operational personal and their training commands. Kind of like TDY ( Temp Duty assignments). As to the mechanics and various operations I can only name about four I was associated with and those are questionable as being dispatched solely by OPS-40 command and cleared by the 5412 Group. Our Teams were dispatched from the Pentagon with logistical support gave by the CIA. In most cases you could say ".. they were not really "CIA" operations, but in reality Military INTEL OPS with CIA logistical support..." At any rate the operations were "layered" and numerous "Locks" and "cut-outs" were assigned to protect the knowledge of these operations and the operational personal.

Regarding Operation 40, I have previously posted about an Operation 40 plan to manipulate the politics of post-Castro Cuba following the Bay of Pigs:

"The Bay of Pigs planning also included manipulating the politics of the Cuban exiles in the aftermath of what was hoped to be a successful takeover. Even many of the Cuban exiles would have been shocked at how far some in the United States were willing to go in this regard. The President’s directive that the exile leadership include more people from the left-of-center orientation to counter charges that the exiles were nothing more than Batisteros in disguise caused some dissension in the CIA’s ranks. E. Howard Hunt’s resentment of the change led him to “resign” or be “fired” from his job as Political Action Officer for the invasion, depending on who’s version one believes. He thought these changes amounted to a policy of Fidelismo sin Fidel, Fidelism without Fidel. Hunt’s political orientation, which was distinctly right wing, was far more amenable to Batistism sin Batista. One of the moderate Cuban leaders, stung by Hunt’s charge, stated: “I don’t know what it means to be a leftist. If it means to be in favor of all the people and for the welfare of the masses, then I am.” Hunt retorted: “Fidel Castro could not have phrased it better.” His ideology was reflected in a quote he was fond of citing: “The liberal’s arm cannot strike with firmness against communism . . . because the liberal dimly feels that in doing so he would be somehow wounding himself.” The right wing Cubans and those in the CIA like Hunt who were most sympathetic to counter-revolutionary politics did make contingency plans for the exiles’ leadership after the landing. “Operation 40 [a high level, government-connected Cuban exile group] called for assassinating the moderates after their return to the island following an invasion.” The U.S. supported the creation of a moderate provisional government during the planning, while its own agents were plotting to install a more right-wing one later. The moderates were intended to legitimize the efforts of the exile force while at the same time becoming targets themselves for some later murderous manipulation."

The recently published book, Ultimate Sacrifice, makes its only mention of Operation 40 in the same context of manipulating the anti-Castro leadership. But what is so important about Tosh's post is the distinction that Operation 40 was a decisionmaking group, and did not include the operatives that were used. I have actually read that this offshoot of the 5412 Committee originally obtained its designation based upon the number of participants, but that it had quickly grown to include approximately 70 such decisionmakers. When we read that Marita Lorenz described the participants in the caravan to Dallas as members of Operation 40, I believe that creates a significant misunderstanding about the group's nature as compared with the mechanics employed for this or that purpose.

Here's how Ultimate Sacrifice deals with the subject, pp. 394-395:

"A White House memo shows that Kennedy officials only learned months after the Bay of Pigs that the CIA formed a small group called Operation 40 - which, according to some accounts, included Trafficante bagman Frank Fiorini - supposedly to assassinate more progressive elements of a new Cuban government. JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote a memo to Richard Goodwin about it, saying that 'liberal Cuban exiles believe that the real purpose of Operation 40' after the Bay of Pigs was to first 'kill Communists - and, after eliminating hard-core Fidelistas, to go on to eliminate first the followers of Ray, then the followers of Varona and finally to set up a right-wing dictatorship, presumably under Artime.' Newly released documents show that David Morales was involved with Operation 40."

I believe that Waldron and Hartmann missed the mark with the mention of Frank Sturgis as a member, although according to Tosh's framework he could very well have been contracted for some Operation 40 task. The book goes on to mention that Cubela, "former leader of a rebel group called the DR," was on board prior to the Bay of Pigs in this scramble for leverage in the anticipated post-Castro period.

EDIT: After posting the above, it occurred to me that the countervailing perception was inadequately represented. Many authors have, for example, included Felix Rodriguez as Operation 40. There have been photos posted of a "covert squad formed from Operation 40" (phraseology that doesn't conflict with the conception of a higher up, decisionmaking group) and an Operation 40 "reunion" (phraseology that does imply that Operation 40, or some similarly named offshoot, included mechanics.

T.C.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Tim Carroll

Frank Agbat · January 14, 2006

...
Here's a photo I took from the south side, precisely where John Dolva shows the isolate figure with partical face showing. A perfect straight-on shot. Al Carrier has argued, I believe, that in his view this trajectory best explains Kennedy's headwound and why the rear evulsion would have been on the right rear rather than left:

T.C.

Tim C.

Great picture -- thank you!

Boy -- not kidding about a straight-on shot -- and with the speed of the motorcade, a shooter from here would have his target in the scope for quite a while. This would be aided, unwittingly, by the slowing of the motorcade.

The only questions I have about this trajectory relate to angles.

1) JFK was slumping to his left after the first shot to hit him. This would be to the shooter's right. Jackie leaned over, as the z-frames increase. I view her actions as "he's having trouble breathing -- step one, loosen this darn necktie. Would she have blocked this angle?

2) Would the headshot be able to clear the front passengers, visors, and the front windshield from here?

3) I would think fragments from this shot would end up on the car trunk, the road behind, even off into the crowd and not in the front seat area. Does that discourage this angle from consideration?

James Richards · January 14, 2006

Tim,

Those possible identifications in the large comparison montage was something I did many years ago. They are not correct and should be discarded.

The main photo though is of great interest.

James

Tim Carroll · January 15, 2006

Those possible identifications in the large comparison montage was something I did many years ago. They are not correct and should be discarded. The main photo though is of great interest.

Noted. I made the correction within the post so that no one would be misled. Anything out there about Op 40 or the issue I addressed?

T.C.

James Richards · January 16, 2006

Noted. I made the correction within the post so that no one would be misled. Anything out there about Op 40 or the issue I addressed? (Tim Carroll)

Thanks, Tim.

As to Op 40, I can only offer what others in the business have told me. Very few folk involved would have anywhere near complete knowledge about what was happening so opinions and 'inside information' come from a narrow window of observation. In a so-called civilized society, assassination is unacceptable so those in the business first and foremost construct a barrier of plausible deniability. This unpleasantness is then hidden amongst another plan or operation. Hence, true effectiveness is diluted as everyone is covering their backs and the desired results are rarely achieved. The attempted killing of Castro over the years being a classic example of this. As time passes, catchy names like Operation 40 take on a life all of their own but are rarely a reflection of what they really were.

I know you are well aware of this so the question is, was a parallel and more sinister plan in operation? Were assets and funds syphoned off to support a system where from the murky shadows of personal hatred and paranoia the job could get done? Did one of these jobs include the killing of JFK?

All speculation of course as no documents exist to support such a thing. Then again, someone sure took care of that SOB didn't they?

James

John Simkin · January 16, 2006

Noted. I made the correction within the post so that no one would be misled. Anything out there about Op 40 or the issue I addressed? (Tim Carroll)
As to Op 40, I can only offer what others in the business have told me. Very few folk involved would have anywhere near complete knowledge about what was happening so opinions and 'inside information' come from a narrow window of observation. In a so-called civilized society, assassination is unacceptable so those in the business first and foremost construct a barrier of plausible deniability. This unpleasantness is then hidden amongst another plan or operation. Hence, true effectiveness is diluted as everyone is covering their backs and the desired results are rarely achieved. The attempted killing of Castro over the years being a classic example of this. As time passes, catchy names like Operation 40 take on a life all of their own but are rarely a reflection of what they really were.

I have started a new thread on Operation 40 here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5861

John Simkin · May 26, 2006

John: I will get what little factual information I know about OPS-40 to you as soon as I have the time to write it up. As you know any detailed organizational matters and the why's and how and who, as to the formation, I would not know. If I did tell you anything in reference to that.., it would only be speculation on my part. That is how operations are or were done on a "need to know bases". I was not at the "planning" level to know those things. Sometimes I was dispatched to members of ops forty as their operational support member. What and why they were doing what they were doing I would not know..., nor would I ask.

Especially interested in the names of the people concerned and any information on individual operations.

John: I'll do my best, but I might not be of much help as to "pin-pointing" the names of all the operatives that were associated with OPS-40. As you know, part of the operation was a spin from the 5412 group. Operatives would come and go as specialized support personal and they were controlled and dispatched by the 40 group which was part of the 5412 group.

In reality there was no covert team named as "Operation 40" that I am aware of and as some have claimed. Liberties have been taken for whatever reasons and 40 has been cast into a different function than what it really was. Some of the operatives that from time to time did launch missions in behalf of the 40 or 5412 were mostly from the "School of The America" and other specialized operational personal and their training commands. Kind of like TDY ( Temp Duty assignments).

As to the mechanics and various operations I can only name about four I was associated with and those are questionable as being dispatched solely by OPS-40 command and cleared by the 5412 Group.

Our Teams were dispatched from the Pentagon with logistical support gave by the CIA. In most cases you could say ".. they were not really "CIA" operations, but in reality Military INTEL OPS with CIA logistical support...".

At any rate the operations were "layered" and numerous "Locks" and "cut-outs" were assigned to protect the knowledge of these operations and the operational personal.

An account of the formation of Operation 40 can be found in the Senate Report, Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders. On 11th December, 1959, Colonel J. C. King, chief of CIA's Western Hemisphere Division, sent a confidential memorandum to Allen W. Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. King argued that in Cuba there existed a "far-left dictatorship, which if allowed to remain will encourage similar actions against U.S. holdings in other Latin American countries." (1)

As a result of this memorandum Dulles established Operation 40. It obtained this name because originally there were 40 agents involved in the operation. Later this was expanded to 70 agents. The group was presided over by Richard Nixon. Tracy Barnes became operating officer of what was also called the Cuban Task Force. The first meeting chaired by Barnes took place in his office on 18th January, 1960, and was attended by David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Jack Esterline and Frank Bender.

According to Fabian Escalante, a senior officer of the Cuban Department of State Security (G-2), in 1960 Richard Nixon recruited an "important group of businessmen headed by George Bush (Snr.) and Jack Crichton, both Texas oilmen, to gather the necessary funds for the operation". This suggests that Operation 40 agents were involved in freelance work. (2)

In 1990 Common Cause magazine argued that: "The CIA put millionaire and agent George Bush in charge of recruiting exiled Cubans for the CIA’s invading army; Bush was working with another Texan oil magnate, Jack Crichton, who helped him in terms of the invasion." (3) This story was linked to the release of "a memorandum in that context addressed to FBI chief J. Edward Hoover and signed November 1963, which reads: Mr. George Bush of the CIA" (4)

Reinaldo Taladrid and Lazaro Baredo claim that in 1959 George Bush was asked “to cooperate in funding the nascent anti-Castro groups that the CIA decided to create”. The man “assigned to him for his new mission” was Felix Rodriguez. (5)

Daniel Hopsicker also takes the view that Operation 40 involved private funding. In the book, Barry and the Boys: The CIA, the Mob and America’s Secret History, he claims that Nixon’s had established Operation 40 as a result of pressure from American corporations which had suffered at the hands of Fidel Castro. (6)

Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin have argued that Bush was very close to members of Operation 40 in the early 1960s. In September, 1963, Bush launched his Senate campaign. At that time, right-wing Republicans were calling on John Kennedy to take a more aggressive approach towards Fidel Castro. For example, in one speech Barry Goldwater said: “I advocate the recognition of a Cuban government in exile and would encourage this government every way to reclaim its country. This means financial and military assistance.” Bush took a more extreme position than Goldwater and called for a “new government-in-exile invasion of Cuba”. As Tarpley and Chaitkin point out, beneficiaries of this policy would have been “Theodore Shackley, who was by now the station chief of CIA Miami Station, Felix Rodriguez, Chi Chi Quintero, and the rest of the boys” from Operation 40. (7)

Paul Kangas is another investigator who has claimed that George Bush was involved with members of Operation 40. In an article published in The Realist in 1990, Kangas claims: "Among other members of the CIA recruited by George Bush for (the attacks on Cuba) were Frank Sturgis, Howard Hunt, Bernard Baker and Rafael Quintero.” In an article published in Granma in January, 2006, the journalists Reinaldo Taladrid and Lazaro Baredo argued that “Another of Bush’s recruits for the Bay of Pigs invasion, Rafael Quintero, who was also part of this underworld of organizations and conspiracies against Cuba, stated: If I was to tell what I know about Dallas and the Bay of Pigs, it would be the greatest scandal that has ever rocked the nation." (8) This information comes from the deposition of Gene Wheaton made during the Iran-Contra investigation. (9)

Fabian Escalante names William Pawley as being one of those who was lobbying for the CIA to assassinate Castro. (10) Escalante points out that Pawley had played a similar role in the CIA overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala. Interestingly, the CIA assembled virtually the same team that was involved in the removal of Arbenz: Tracey Barnes, Richard Bissell, David Morales, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Rip Robertson and Henry Hecksher. Added to this list were several agents who had been involved in undercover operations in Germany: Ted Shackley, Tom Clines and William Harvey.

According to Daniel Hopsicker, Edwin Wilson, Barry Seal, William Seymour, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Hemming were also involved in Operation 40. (11) It has also been pointed out that Operation 40 was not only concerned about trying to overthrow Fidel Castro. Frank Sturgis has claimed: "this assassination group (Operation 40) would upon orders, naturally, assassinate either members of the military or the political parties of the foreign country that you were going to infiltrate, and if necessary some of your own members who were suspected of being foreign agents."

Virtually every one of the field agents of Operation 40 were Cubans. This included Rafael ‘Chi Chi’ Quintero, Luis Posada, Orlando Bosch, Roland Masferrer, Eladio del Valle, Guillermo Novo, Carlos Bringuier, Eugenio Martinez, Antonio Cuesta, Hermino Diaz Garcia, Felix Ismael Rodriguez, Antonio Veciana, Juan Manuel Salvat, Ricardo Chavez, Ricardo Morales Navarrete, Isidro Borjas, Virgilio Paz, Jose Dionisio Suarez, Felipe Rivero, Gaspar Jimenez Escobedo, Nazario Sargent, Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz, Jose Basulto, and Paulino Sierra. (12)

Most of these characters had been associated with the far-right in Cuban politics. Rumours soon became circulating that it was not only Fidel Castro that was being targeted. On 9th June, 1961, Arthur Schlesinger sent a memo to Richard Goodwin:

“Sam Halper, who has been the Times correspondent in Havana and more recently in Miami, came to see me last week. He has excellent contracts among the Cuban exiles. One of Miro's comments this morning reminded me that I have been meaning to pass on the following story as told me by Halper. Halper says that CIA set up something called Operation 40 under the direction of a man named (as he recalled) Captain Luis Sanjenis, who was also chief of intelligence. (Could this be the man to whom Miro referred this morning?) It was called Operation 40 because originally only 40 men were involved: later the group was enlarged to 70. The ostensible purpose of Operation 40 was to administer liberated territories in Cuba. But the CIA agent in charge, a man known as Felix, trained the members of the group in methods of third degree interrogation, torture and general terrorism. The liberal Cuban exiles believe that the real purpose of Operation 40 was to "kill Communists" and, after eliminating hard-core Fidelistas, to go on to eliminate first the followers of Ray, then the followers of Varona and finally to set up a right wing dictatorship, presumably under Artime.” (13)

In an interview he gave to Jean-Guy Allard in May, 2005, Fabian Escalante pointed out: “Who in 1963 had the resources to assassinate Kennedy? Who had the means and who had the motives to kill the U.S. president? CIA agents from Operation 40 who were rabidly anti-Kennedy. And among them were Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles, Antonio Veciana and Felix Rodriguez Mendigutia." (14)

Notes

1. Senate Report, Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, 1975 (page 92)

2. Fabian Escalante, CIA Covert Operations 1959-1962: The Cuba Project, 2004 (pages 42 and 43)

3. Common Cause Magazine (4th March, 1990)

4. The Nation magazine (13th August, 1988)

5. Reinaldo Taladrid and Lazaro Baredo, Granma (16th January, 2006)

6. Daniel Hopsicker, Barry and the Boys: The CIA, the Mob and America’s Secret History, 2001 (page 170)

7. Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, 2004 (page 173)

8. Reinaldo Taladrid and Lazaro Baredo, Granma (16th January, 2006).

9. Deposition of Gene Wheaton (1-3, 7-8 March, 1988). Wheaton gave evidence against Chi Chi Quintero during the Iran-Contra investigation.

10. Fabian Escalante, CIA Covert Operations 1959-1962: The Cuba Project, 2004 (pages 42 and 43)

11. Daniel Hopsicker, Mad Cow Morning News (24th August, 2004)

12. Jean-Guy Allard, Granma (22nd May, 2005)

13. Arthur Schlesinger, memo to Richard Goodwin (9th June, 1961)

14. Jean-Guy Allard, Granma (22nd May, 2005)

John Simkin · May 26, 2006