Fake Assassination Attempt

[Tim Carroll]

It is pure fantasy on Robert's part to assert that there was any compromise in security protocols "just prior to the assassination".

Whether or not there was actually any security stripping in Dallas, the possibility is certainly consistent with the proposition that there was a fake attempt operation in play that day. The fake assassination attempt, security stripping scenario was advanced in the following excerpt by George Michael Evica:

Security stripping of the president on a massive scale occurred on November 22nd, 1963. From Love Field (where the motorcade was “re-organized”) to Dealey Plaza (a model of insecurity) the president was rendered mortally vulnerable.

The deliberate security stripping (most of JFK’s Secret Service men were falsely informed) was part of a covert test of the president’s security, including a planned simulated attack on the president in Dealey Plaza. Some of the Secret Service men, however, possessed knowledge of an actual attack; some Secret Service men were complicit in what they thought was to be a fake attack but had no knowledge of the actual attack; and at least one had no knowledge of either the fake attack or the actual attack. Finally, some of the Secret Service men were told the president himself was aware of the simulation and was cooperating.

Within the structure of the simulated attack, certain individuals were informed that the attack would be traced to pro-Castro elements: a crucial feature intended to attract anti-Communist and anti-Castro support for the Dealey Plaza plot.

The simulation was then converted to an actual attack on JFK, a perfect cover for the assassination.

Though most of the president’s security forces were ordered to co-operate in the simulated attack by not taking part in the protection of the president, some members of the Dallas police, some members of the Secret Service, and some members of military intelligence were aware of the actual planned attack.

The intelligence and security forces of the U.S., Texas, and Dallas were all rendered accessories before the fact in this stunning plot. Everyone—except the FBI—was perceived to be complicit.

But a small group of FBI agents in New Orleans and Dallas (with Organized Crime, CIA, military intelligence, and anti-Castro connections) were actual parties to the assassination. And the principle [sic] accessory before the fact in the Bureau was J. Edgar Hoover himself, with prior knowledge of the assassination.

Every U.S. investigative body associated with the JFK assassination was complicit in either the assumed simulated attack, the actual murder, or the post-assassination cover-up.

The assassination and the following cover-up were facilitated by the planned False Sponsorship of the Dealey Plaza murder. The False Sponsorship hypothesis is, in fact, the major key to discovering the actual murderers of John F. Kennedy.

Representatives of organizations fiercely opposed to JFK (and his domestic and foreign policies), including anti-Castro exile Cubans and their allies, Jimmy Hoffa and corrupt Teamsters locals, anti-Communist paramilitary groups, the U.S. Armed Forces (especially ultra-conservative members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), U.S. military and civilian intelligence, European reactionary forces, right-wing domestic organizations (including immigrant anti-Soviet groups and “captive nations” alliances), Organized Crime, and U.S. corporations holding huge military contracts—whether or not these groups were active participants in the planned kill—were falsely implicated in the assassination plot in a variety of ways, including infiltration by government agents, informers, and provocateurs. Among others, Lee Harvey Oswald, Richard Case Nagell, Joseph Milteer, William Bishop, Gordon Novell, David Ferrie, John Thomas Masen, Jim Braden, and Jack Ruby (all of them witting or not) were key conduits to the False Sponsors.

The False Sponsorship network was nested (primarily, but not exclusively) in a right-wing matrix.

Representatives of the False Sponsors (many of whom were located in the South and Southwest) were invited to Dallas between November 20th and November 24th, to view 1. the simulated attack (they thought) or 2. the actual murder. Both groups would be witnesses to a bloody coup, a public execution. Representatives often had links to a half-dozen different False Sponsors. Several recognizable (so-called) hitmen were recruited from the Mafia, the reactionary Right, and U.S. Intelligence to make appearances in Dallas, regardless of their actual participation in the assassination. These hitmen were members of three False Sponsor assassination squads who were not the actual Dealey Plaza cross-firing operators.

Perfect Cover: A Theory of the JFK Assassination: What Happened on November 22, 1963

By George Michael Evica, Based upon a work in progress: The Iron Sights: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of J.F.K. (From The Assassination Chronicles Volume 1, Issue 4, December 1995)

T.C.

[Duke Lane]

I raised the issue of a fake assassination attempt as a possible scenario because I believe, like Tim C does, that it explains a lot of things. (See Tim's excellent post above.)

It does only if you can get past the absurdity of the idea in the first place. Isn't it a bit like testing your brakes by racing into a bridge abutment at 70 and hitting your brakes ... well, let's try 50 feet first, and then, if we survive, we'll try 40, and then ....?

No, it's actually more ludicrous than that: it's like saying "why install brakes since we're not going to crash into a bridge abutment anyway?"

This from the recently released Wine House tapes:

Unidentified speaker:

"Okay, guys, here's the plan. Today, we're going to set aside, nay, abandon our entire reason for being, our professional charter, our sworn duty and, in the spirit of fun, we're going to see if POTUS can, indeed, be killed when we're not around. Of course, we

know

nobody's going to try, but let's not upset the apple cart here, guys,

or

our salaries, pensions and budget, we've gotta keep up the pretense that somebody actually

might

, so today, we're gonna fake it, okay? Yeah, we all got this great idea last night at The Cellar, y'all really should've been there ...."

I don't think this "fake assassination attempt" scenario even qualifies as a straw man, does it?

[Tim Gratz]

Duke, there were many absurd ideas advanced in the early sixties. Look at the rather absurd proposals advanced to get rid of Castro. Many made little sense and yet they were advanced by intelligent men.

Are you stating that the United States could not have conceived of a way to "fake" an assassination attempt on JFK without risking anyone's life? If not, I do n ot understand why you consider the idea "absurd".

The dialogue that you propose shows you do not understand the concept of a fake assassination attempt at all. It was not a question of the SS standing aside to fail to prevent a real assassination. The suggestion was that there would be a staged assassination designed to fail (similar in concept to the staged assault on Guantonimo).

Had JFK survived a fake assassination attempt, whether blamed on Castro or on the extreme right-wing in Dallas, it certainly would have assured his re-election. If blamed on Castro, it could have been used to justify the "palace coup" propounded by "Ultimate Sacrifice".

[Tim Carroll]

I raised the issue of a fake assassination attempt as a possible scenario because I believe ... that it explains a lot of things.

It does only if you can get past the absurdity of the idea in the first place. Isn't it a bit like testing your brakes by racing into a bridge abutment at 70 and hitting your brakes ... well, let's try 50 feet first, and then, if we survive, we'll try 40, and then ....? No, it's actually more ludicrous than that: it's like saying "why install brakes since we're not going to crash into a bridge abutment anyway?"... I don't think this "fake assassination attempt" scenario even qualifies as a straw man, does it?

While the thread topic is a fake assassination attempt, the exchange between Tim Gratz and Robert Charles-Dunne centered primarily on security stripping. Security stripping also seems to be the target of Duke's stretched analogy(s?), in that they go to the idea of systems testing, rather than a counterintelligence maneuver aimed at Cuba.

Regarding counterintelligence operations, I personally discounted Ken O'Donnell's supposed account of a conversation with RFK about downing a civilian airplane as a pretext for an invasion - until I read Operation Northwoods and heard the Cuban Missile Crisis tape recording of Bobby speaking straight off the Northwoods script when he proposed a "Sink the Maine" incident.

More recently, we have the account in Ultimate Sacrifice of the "Cuban Contingency Plan" memo, dated November 12, 1963, dealing with the subject of the attempted "assassination of American officials." So, while the proposition of a fake assassination attempt may seem far-fetched, it is not deserving of ridicule.

I would always welcome a reaction to the H. L. Hunt memos reflecting foreknowledge of an administration-planned incident for Dallas and intelligence on the invasion planning for Cuba.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

An interesting question is whether George Michael Evica had any evidence for his scenario or whether it is simply conjectural.

Tim is certainly correct that a fake assassination attempt is consistent with the schemes proposed in Operation Northwoods.

If the credibility of our government was jeopardized by the WC report and LBJ's lies about the war in Vietnam, the exposure of Operation Northwoods and/or a fake assassination attempt would have destroyed it for a substantial period of time. It would have been as damaging as the disclosure of the existence of the CIA partnership with the Mafia to kill Castro.

Hence a fake assassination attempt would have indeed provided "perfect cover". Such a plot guaranteed there would be a cover-up.

If such a plot had existed and been hijacked, and if RFK had been witting of it, it would certainly explain his overwhelming grief.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Second, you may wish to consider how SS protection protocols were compromised just prior to the assassination, when CIA played a role in same during the late '63 Florida jaunt. What could dilute such protective protocols more thoroughly than sharing that type of information with an organization that maintained its own staff of freelance assassins? While you're navel-gazing and blue-skying any number of speculations, perhaps either of these two thoughts might take up a few nano-seconds of your time?

First comment: Robert's writing is usually lucid but that first sentence in the above paragraph is as bad as any in Mellen's book: "the CIA played a role in same"? To what does "same" refer?

Gee, Tim, what does the sentence say? "...how SS protection protocols were compromised... when CIA played a role in same." It's not that hard to parse, unless one wishes to pretend these things are just too hard to understand.

I assume to "SS protection protocols". I am not aware of any written "SS protection protocols" but would certainly be interested in seeing if any exist. I would also be interested in Robert's documentation that the CIA "played a role" in the development of any such protocols.

Please do some homework. Do you think the White House protective detail merely convened every day and hung around, hoping for the best? Yes, there were protocols in place, and a lengthy list of dos and don'ts for those assigned to the detail, many of which have already been discussed here.

As for the role played by CIA during the Florida leg of the trip, it is again time for you to do some homework. Ironically enough, SS personnel there wrote a letter of thanks to local CIA personnel for their help in presidential security during that trip. Perhaps Forum member Vince Palamara could post his copy, as I can't find mine.

It is pure fantasy on Robert's part to assert that there was any compromise in security protocols "just prior to the assassination". Proof of that is the photo of the JFK motorcade in Key West, less than a month after the resolution of the CMC. The photo shows: 1) JFK in open Lincoln convertible; 2) no motorcycles on either side; and 3) no SS agents on the back of the car. This despite the fact that Key West was home to a large number of Cuban exiles, many enraged that JFK had not used the CMC to get rid of Castro. It only takes a few nano-seconds to examine that photo and realize that the security in Key West in November of 1962 was no different than the security in Dallas. It is certainly time to put the "security stripping" issue to bed. (I know it is hard on Robert to see the "security stripping" theory demolished, since it is about the only proposition that supports his scenario of the assassination, but the Kennedy visit to Key West is proof beyond any doubt that the security in Dallas was not unique. (Gee, maybe there was photo alteration!)

Your sarcasm is misdirected. I haven't suggested that there was security stripping [as in "let's deliberately leave him defenseless."] That is your strawman argument. What I have suggested is that by collaborating with SS, CIA became intimately acquainted with the protocols and was thus well positioned to figure out how to circumvent the protocols that were in place. For example, it was a firing offense for White House detail personnel to consume liquor while assigned to that detail; yet the night prior to the assassination the majority of the assigned detail was out late getting liquored up, many until the wee hours. That wouldn't constitute "stripping" of security, but it would certainly compromise the protocols in place. Nor would it seem dramatically conspiratorial. One hasn't killed or kidnapped SS personnel, nor ordered them to stand down. One has merely seen to it that their response time would be dramatically compromised, which I think anyone who's bothered to look at the motorcade photos would agree transpired.

[Duke Lane]

Duke, there were many absurd ideas advanced in the early sixties. Look at the rather absurd proposals advanced to get rid of Castro. Many made little sense and yet they were advanced by intelligent men.

Are you stating that the United States could not have conceived of a way to "fake" an assassination attempt on JFK without risking anyone's life? If not, I do not understand why you consider the idea "absurd".

The dialogue that you propose shows you do not understand the concept of a fake assassination attempt at all. It was not a question of the SS standing aside to fail to prevent a real assassination. The suggestion was that there would be a staged assassination designed to fail (similar in concept to the staged assault on Guantonimo).

Had JFK survived a fake assassination attempt, whether blamed on Castro or on the extreme right-wing in Dallas, it certainly would have assured his re-election. If blamed on Castro, it could have been used to justify the "palace coup" propounded by "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Tim,

My "scenarios" were intended to be absurd, just as I consider the idea that the SS would stand aside even for a staged, fake "attempt" if only on account of the (however remote) possibility that something might go wrong. Like using real people in crash tests instead of dummies on the premise that the car won't accelerate to a speed sufficient to cause "real" injuries. (Oops!)

If such a "fake attempt" were to be planned and approved, a much better fail-safe would of necessity have been employed or the USSS would never have undertaken it (the USG was quite familiar with the notion of "fail-safe" at that point in time ... and to the USSS, the death of a president on their watch was not far afield of an accidental dropping of a nuclear bomb on Moscow). The key is in your observation of an attempt "without risking anyone's life."

A shooter rushing in on JFK in a crowd and allowed to get within a few feet of him with defective ammunition (which alone, being live ammo, would have been anathema to the USSS) and being deflected, even killed at the last moment would seem more plausible for an "allowed" fake attempt than gunfire during a motorcade. Of course, then you'd need to find someone willing to die for the "cause," which I don't think entirely likely (without, of course, getting into the issue of "government mind control" and "Manchurian candidates"). Even in such a case, the "risk" would have been too great.

On the other hand, someone being caught planting a bomb along JFK's route, whether in a motorcade or where he was making an appearance - something that would not involve direct or proximate contact with the protectee, and certainly not anything that could cause him bodily harm, much less death - would seem to fit the bill both as something the USSS could "live with" (since the situation - and the bomb! - would be defused long before the protectee would be in potential harm's way), as well as something that could be shown as an "assassination attempt" by Castro or anyone else. The "risk" is greatly reduced if not entirely eliminated.

In sum, any such "attempt," to pass muster, would have to be something that had a much greater element of control to ensure the safety of the protectee than the events in Dallas could have possibly allowed. While perhaps the idea of a "staged attempt" might not be wholly implausible, the suggestion that the "game plan" in Dallas was among those seriously contemplated and allowed to move forward is, yes, patently absurd, if simply on account of the element of risk, and possibly coupled with the notion that the USSS could possibly just "stand down" at the sound of gunfire from some unknown direction.

Indeed, the only way I could see this scenario being advanced is by someone actually intent upon "hijacking" it and hoping nobody would see the ruse.

Edit: Incidentally, other than political gain (re-election), what would blaming the right wing in Dallas have achieved of significant national strategic value that the USSS would acquiesce to any such scheme, no matter the element of risk or control? Blaming the right wing would achieve exactly the opposite of blaming Castro, wouldn't it?

Edited January 30, 2006 by Duke Lane

[Tim Carroll]

My "scenarios" were intended to be absurd, just as I consider the idea that the SS would stand aside even for a staged, fake "attempt" if only on account of the (however remote) possibility that something might go wrong.... Indeed, the only way I could see this scenario being advanced is by someone actually intent upon "hijacking" it and hoping nobody would see the ruse.

I consider it unfortunate that this thread's focus was shifted to the security stripping issue, which isn't integral to the fake assassination attempt hypothesis. That Oswald had been sheepdipped as pro-Castro, that there were a few wildly stray shots in Dealey Plaza which may have been deliberate misses - these have no necessary relationship to security stripping. But being misled to believe a fake assassination attempt was in play would explain a great deal about the position Oswald found himself in.

T.C.

[Duke Lane]

My "scenarios" were intended to be absurd, just as I consider the idea that the SS would stand aside even for a staged, fake "attempt" if only on account of the (however remote) possibility that something might go wrong.... Indeed, the only way I could see this scenario being advanced is by someone actually intent upon "hijacking" it and hoping nobody would see [through] the ruse.

I consider it unfortunate that this thread's focus was shifted to the security stripping issue, which isn't integral to the fake assassination attempt hypothesis. That Oswald had been sheepdipped as pro-Castro, that there were a few wildly stray shots in Dealey Plaza which may have been deliberate misses - these have no necessary relationship to security stripping. But being misled to believe a fake assassination attempt was in play would explain a great deal about the position Oswald found himself in.

Sorry, but the "focus" seems to have been shifted from the start:

I would welcome an explanation from anyone asserting the authenticity of the supposed Chicago and Tampa plots and JFK's awareness of them, of how likely it would have been that JFK would have Jackie beside him in Dallas just four days after Tampa. The idea that JFK was aware of a pending fake attempt not only explains many things about Dallas, it especially explains Tampa and the manner in which the president stood in his limo through the motorcade, ostensibly aware of a plot against him that day.

I'm not sure how that last bit pertains to "the position Oswald found himself in," but I'll run with it for a moment. Yes, if Oswald were led to believe that there was a "scam" assassination attempt to take place, it might help to explain Oswald's "position," but what remains to be explained is why, how or by whom he'd have been "misled to believe" such a thing.

As to Chicago and Tampa, if we believe correctly that those were authentic assassination attempts (why set up three fake ones?), then there is all the more reason to exclude the possibility that, amid these authentic attempts, the USSS would stage such a scam - or allow one to be staged - for any reason, most certainly one driven by solely political considerations (re-election).

Repeat: absurd.

[Len Colby]

What HARD evidence is there that there were attempts 'real' or 'fake' in Tampa or Chicago?

What Hard evidence is there of a 'fake' attempt in Dallas?

What HARD evidence is there of 'security stripping' in Dallas that somehow facilitated the assassination? As was pointed out previously a couple more motorcycle cops would not have made any difference nor would sealing the sewer covers. As for people being in windows I remember another thread where photos were posted of other Kennedy motorcades (in Miami, Honolulu and Ireland IIRC) in which this was allowed.

[Tim Carroll]

What HARD evidence is there that there were attempts 'real' or 'fake' in Tampa or Chicago?

How can there be HARD evidence of attempts in Tampa and Chicago, when no "attempts" were made in those cities?

What Hard evidence is there of a 'fake' attempt in Dallas?

The "HARD" (as in "hard copy; i.e. paper) evidence of an administration-planned incident for Dallas is shown in the H. L. Hunt memos. The fake attempt scenario is a hypothetical framework of explanation. If there was HARD evidence of anything beyond Kennedy's death and Connally's wounding, we wouldn't be here.

What HARD evidence is there of 'security stripping' in Dallas that somehow facilitated the assassination?

As I have noted previously in this thread, the issue of security stripping is not integral to the proposition of a fake assassination operation hijacked for the real thing. Generally, the entire topic of the Kennedy assassination usually doesn't involve the kind of "HARD" evidence which would be societally conclusive. That's why the term "best evidence" is more appropriate. That said, I consider the film of SS Agent Rybka's astonishment at being left at Love Field to be of compelling interest, as well as Emory Roberts' stand down order. But again, security stripping is not integrally necessary to a counterintelligence operation in which a gun is fired astray.

T.C.

[Len Colby]

'Tim Carroll' Jan 30 2006, 09:33 PM

What HARD evidence is there that there were attempts 'real' or 'fake' in Tampa or Chicago?

How can there be HARD evidence of attempts in Tampa and Chicago, when no "attempts" were made in those cities?

IIRC people have theorized that atempts were planned for those cities.

What Hard evidence is there of a 'fake' attempt in Dallas?

The "HARD" (as in "hard copy; i.e. paper) evidence of an administration-planned incident for Dallas is shown in the H. L. Hunt memos. The fake attempt scenario is a hypothetical framework of explanation. If there was HARD evidence of anything beyond Kennedy's death and Connally's wounding, we wouldn't be here.

Where can I read more about the hunt memos, what other evidence is there of a fake attempt in Dallas?

What HARD evidence is there of 'security stripping' in Dallas that somehow facilitated the assassination?

As I have noted previously in this thread, the issue of security stripping is not integral to the proposition of a fake assassination operation hijacked for the real thing. Generally, the entire topic of the Kennedy assassination usually doesn't involve the kind of "HARD" evidence which would be societally conclusive. That's why the term "best evidence" is more appropriate. That said, I consider the film of SS Agent Rybka's astonishment at being left at Love Field to be of compelling interest, as well as Emory Roberts' stand down order. But again, security stripping is not integrally necessary to a counterintelligence operation in which a gun is fired astray.

Security stripping is not intergral but related to the idea of a fake attempt and has already to been thrown into the soup.

Maybe hard evidence was a poor coice or words maybe reliable evidence would be better. Also hard evidence does not mean the samething as conclusive or irrefutable evidence.

I don't know anything about Agent Rybka being left behind but I imagine some sort of foul up was responsible, what difference could one more agent have made? Where would he have been assigned to?

Where can I read more about Emory Robert's 'stand down order'?

[Tim Carroll]

I don't know anything about Agent Rybka being left behind but I imagine some sort of foul up was responsible, what difference could one more agent have made? Where would he have been assigned to? Where can I read more about Emory Robert's 'stand down order'?

The film of Rybka being left behind is, to me, compelling. Emory Roberts was directing the SS car, the Queen Mary, and left Rybka at the airport. This was the agent who would have been riding on the front of the right runningboard, the presidential side equivalent of Clint Hill. When the shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, Roberts directed the agents to stay put. Clint Hill disobeyed. Rybka was to be the agent in the best position to get to the president and provide physical cover, so he would have been in the best possible position to potentially change the outcome. As for the "foul up," it can be seen in the film clip posted. Roberts suddenly and inexplicably changed the detail. His report reflected that leaving Rybka and adding an agent to LBJ's detail were the two changes that had been made.

Where can I read more about the hunt memos...?

Here's a part of a post from earlier in this thread:

Ultimate Sacrifice does indeed include references to a fake attempt planned for Dallas. On page 738, the book notes, "Bobby's suspicion could have been triggered by the way in which JFK was killed, by the link of Oswald (or Oswald's alias) to the crime, by some activity related to C-Day being staged in Dallas, or by all of those things." The H.L. Hunt memos provide material corroboration that there was foreknowledge among the wrong crowd of such an administration operation:

...North Texas State University, which oddly enough was also where the universities "Young Peoples Republican Club" had planned to join alongside Edwin Walker in a protest during President Kennedy's (now infamous) motorcade. The protest was called off after the Dallas Police learned of said plan, ostensibly Walker departed on Nov. 21, and neither he nor his 'group' as the Warren Commission referred to it materialized.

I believe there was a concerted effort reaching the highest levels of Dallas powerbrokering to keep the right-wing quiet that day. This connects to the information that had been received by H. L. Hunt and presumably others that an administration "incident" was planned for Dallas that could be blamed on the right-wing:

"The Hunts learned that President Kennedy's visit to Dallas might be greeted with violence nearly three weeks before the President crossed the state line. The warning came from the family's master intelligence man, Hunt Oil security chief Paul Rothermel. In a November 4, 1963, interoffice memo headlined 'POLITICS,' Rothermel informed his boss that there had been 'unconfirmed reports of possible violence during the parade' scheduled to take place when Kennedy arrived in town on November 22. Although Rothermel did not directly identify his sources, it was clear from his memo that he was sharing information the FBI and the Dallas Police Department were getting from informants placed in General Edwin Walker's right-wing political action groups in Dallas and on the campus of North Texas State University in Denton.

'The North Texas informant is reporting information that would indicate that that group may be planning an incident,' Rothermel wrote. 'There is another report from a left-wing group that an incident will occur with the knowledge of the President whereby the left-wingers will start the incident in hopes of dragging in any of the right side groups or individuals nearby and then withdrawing. The talk is that the incident involving Adlai Stevenson made the present administration hopeful in that if they could get the same thing to happen to Kennedy it could reassure his election....' As Rothermel pointed out in his memo to Hunt, 'If an incident were to occur, the true story of who perpetrated it would never come out.' Rothermel, however, had a solution to suggest. 'I have thought about the problem,' he wrote, 'and I am wondering if a few letters to the editor might not be a good way of pre-exposing this if, in fact, there is a planned incident.'"

Hunt did write an editorial, not to expose the administration's scheme, but rather to discourage any right-wing demonstrations that could be exploited. We don't know what Dallas oilmen like H. L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson really did about their inside information. There can be little doubt, however, that their information was based on quality intelligence. An example would be the assertions in the new book, Ultimate Sacrifice, about a planned invasion of Cuba. On pages 237-238:

"In a provocative memo dated February 6, 1964, Rothermel informed Hunt that 'Lyndon B. Johnson is mortally afraid of being assassinated and does not trust the Secret Service to protect him. He has ordered the F.B.I. to be present everywhere he goes with no less than two men and more when there is any possibility that he will be exposed. Johnson has confidentially placed a direct telephone line from his office to J. Edgar Hoover's desk.'

Four days after the report on LBJ, Rothermel brought his boss some even more stunning news. 'There is information that the CIA and the State Department are currently planning a second invasion of Cuba,' Rothermel wrote. 'A very reliable source reports that the Manuel Ray group, which is extremely left-wing, has been in touch with the CIA and has agreed to a second invasion. The right-wing Cubans are being pressured to join the invasion. The second invasion is being closely scrutinized by John Martino, leader of the right-wing groups, for fear it will be a second Bay of Pigs fiasco.'"

Harry Hurt III, Texas Rich, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), pp. 223-224.

Ultimate Sacrifice notes on page 390 that the framework for fake operations contemplated to pretextualize an invasion of Cuba predated Operation Northwoods, going back to the pre-Bay of Pigs Eisenhower administration planning. There is a reference to "a joint effort with Naval Intelligence. It involved staging a fake attack on the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo, Cuba, using U.S.-supported exiles pretending to be Fidel's troops." Later, with regard to Ultimate Sacrifice's C-Day planning, Cyrus Vance asserted that "the U.S. does not contemplate ... a premeditated full-scale invasion of Cuba ... except in the case of Soviet intervention or the reintroduction of offensive weapons." In this concern about the Soviet presence in Cuba, Oswald's background can be seen to be potentially useful in his planned role as patsy for Castro's assassination, preceding a coup. However, Vance denied that any "contrivance or a provocation which could be used as a pretext for" an invasion continued to be a consideration [p.94].

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

THe possibility of a fake assassination attempt is discussed here:

http://ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#wean

I know this article has been discussed before. (Clearly I do not agree with all of its contents.)

What do members think of the premise that Howard Hunt was directing a fake assassination attempt?

It is interesting that, Hunt being alive, he could confirm it.

It would explain Hunt's presence in DP (if in fact he was).

Edited February 6, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

At http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/11-17-03/...ion.cgi.10.html

there appears this passage [Please read my comments to follow re who was the father-in-law of Audie Murphy's employer]:

The first edition of There's a Fish in the Courthouse was published in 1987, and tells of an incredible meeting that Gary attended in late 1963. One of Gary's friends was Audie Murphy, America's most decorated war hero who became a Hollywood movie star. During World War II, Murphy took on hundreds of German soldiers and six tanks single-handedly near Holtzwihr France, while he was firing a machine gun from atop a burning vehicle filled with explosives. It stands as one of the most heroic feats from any war. Murphy suffered from “shell shock” (now called Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome) for the rest of his life.

One of Murphy's friends was Bill Decker, the sheriff of Dallas County. Decker came to California regularly on business, and when he came to town, Gary would arrange for Murphy, Decker, himself and his partner to dine at the Police Academy. About two weeks after the JFK assassination, in early December 1963, Decker was in town and they all had lunch together. The topic of conversation quickly turned to what arms experts across the nation were discussing: how could Oswald have made those shots with that poor shooting position and mediocre rifle to kill John Kennedy? Nobody at that table thought it was possible for Oswald to have made those shots. After they arrived at their conclusion, Decker told them that he knew Oswald had not fired the shots, and that a man in Dallas wanted to talk to somebody about it. Oswald died while being transferred to Decker’s custody. Decker knew somebody who could set the record straight, and wanted to talk to somebody not connected to Dallas or Washington. Murphy was interested, and the next week, Murphy, Gary and his partner were flying to Ruidoso, New Mexico to meet Decker and his friend.

They met at the airport and went to a diner to talk. The man who came with Decker was named John. According to John, Oswald was anything but a “lone nut.” He was a U.S. intelligence agent acting under the direction of E. Howard Hunt. Oswald had been recruited into military intelligence when he joined the Marines. His hanging out in an expensive Tokyo nightclub as a private, his learning Russian at the highly sensitive U-2 base in Japan, his defection to the Soviet Union and other oddities were all part of his intelligence career (which probably began even before his Marine days, when he was a cadet in 1955 in David Ferrie’s Civil Air Patrol unit. “Coincidentally,” Oswald began his “fascination” with communism at the same time). Oswald was developing "communist" credentials for his future activities in infiltrating communist organizations. It was a fairly normal American intelligence path.[4]

Oswald was inducted into CIA covert activities and came under Hunt’s direction. Hunt was a major player in mounting the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, and he, as with many others in the military and CIA, blamed Kennedy for the failure (Kennedy refused to call in openly American air support). Hunt dreamed up the crazy assassination attempts on Castro that the United States tried. His mission in life was eliminating Castro. Oswald came into his control, and was thrown into the cauldron of the Cuban exile communities in Miami and New Orleans. Oswald did not initially know what his mission would be.

Hunt was paranoid about Oswald's Russian wife, thinking that she might be a Russian spy, so Oswald could tell her nothing about his activities. Oswald’s joining Fair Play for Cuba and his staged “murder attempt” on General Walker were all part of giving Oswald “credentials” that would make his upcoming performance more believable. Hunt had concocted the most bizarre assassination intrigue of all time. Oswald was going to participate in a fake assassination attempt on John Kennedy, and frame Castro for it. Oswald’s apparent visit to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City was part of laying an elaborate trail to Cuba. Hunt believed that if Castro could be implicated in an assassination attempt on JFK, the American people could be riled up into supporting an outright invasion of Cuba.

JFK was not aware of the fake assassination plan, but high-ranking officials in the government and his administration were. Military intelligence, the FBI and the CIA were all involved. Oswald was initially leery of Hunt’s plan, but with assurances and after seeing the high-level people involved, he went along with it. Oswald was to fire his rifle into the air, then go into hiding, and the false trail to Cuba was laid. He could come home to a hero’s welcome and live a normal life after America had finished mopping up Cuba.

But something went horribly wrong. The fake assassination turned into a real one. Somebody had infiltrated the operation, interposed the mission and killed JFK. The real assassins tried killing Oswald after JFK was killed, but policeman Tippit was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was killed. Oswald escaped, to be captured alive. John said that he knew that Oswald would not have shot a policeman under any circumstances.

At the end of his mind-blowing tale, John handed over a thick manila envelope, sealed with wax with a thumbprint on it, that contained the documents John said would prove his story.

Murphy, Gary and his partner went back to California. They knew that the situation was too big and dangerous for them to pursue. John said that if he went public with his story, he would quickly disappear, never to be heard from again. A few days after that meeting, Decker called Murphy. As John was telling his story, the CIA and intelligence community was in shock. They did not know what to do, paralyzed with fear. As they recovered from their shock, they saw themselves facing the firing squad if their involvement in the assassination intrigue became known. The intelligence community decided they would do everything they could to cover their tracks, invoking “national security.” Decker told Murphy that John had given him the envelope of documents in a moment of panic, and that if Murphy did not give the envelope back, he would be “destroyed.” Murphy did some fast thinking and told Decker that they had torn the envelope into pieces and threw them out of the airplane as they were flying back to California.

That is what Gary says he witnessed, and I believe him. In the first edition of his book, Gary hid John's identity. Because John was dead when Gary published the second edition of his book in 1996, Gary revealed that “John” was John Tower, the Senator from Texas and George Bush’s little buddy who he nominated to be the Secretary of Defense.

Gary wrote his book in the early 1970s. New evidence keeps coming to light regarding the JFK assassination. Because of what Gary saw, I knew that Oswald was not a lone nut. The center of gravity of my research into the JFK assassination has been to see how it correlated with Gary's testimony. Every piece of credible evidence I have seen supports Gary’s story, and none contradicts it. Particularly impressive has been the recent revelations of Operation Northwoods, where the U.S. government was going to stage terrorist acts in America to manipulate Americans into supporting an invasion of Cuba. Gary’s story touches upon many facets of the JFK assassination evidence, including Oswald's military intelligence days, his association with the Cuban exiles, the “Texas Connection,” the “Republican Connection,” the oilman connection, the George Bush connection, the CIA connection, the FBI connection and others. Up until now (2002), Gary's testimony has been ignored by virtually everybody involved in investigating the JFK assassination. Gary is the only surviving member of that meeting with John Tower. Tower and Murphy both died in private plane “accidents” that may not have been accidental.

Gary's career ended in Ventura County when he stumbled into corruption that boggles the mind. Gary names names, and I knew some of the people he named in his book, and knew of many of the events. I independently believed his version of some events before I met him. When he encountered the corruption in Ventura, which ended his career, he fought back and survived a murder attempt himself. Those who run Ventura County are judges on the Superior Court, real estate developers, politicians and the like. According to Gary, political murder was common in Ventura County, where judges, lawyers and other people who got in the way or were expendable were murdered, sometimes by private plane “accidents,” mysterious drownings, etc.

Hollywood has made many movies and TV shows about the police and crime in Los Angeles, especially during the 1930s, 1940s and '50s, such as LA Confidential and Chinatown. Gary worked out of the downtown and Hollywood precincts during his days as an LAPD cop. Later in his career, he became an investigator for the LA District Attorney's Office. In the early days of Gary’s career, he was assigned to keep watch on Mickey Cohen, who ran LA’s organized crime operations. Cohen, Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky were Jewish gangsters. Siegel “built” Las Vegas. Cohen ran the LA crime scene for many years. In typical gangster style, Cohen’s hangouts were often boxing arenas, racetracks, restaurants, etc. Gary followed Cohen around as part of his job. One member of Cohen’s entourage, who Gary saw regularly, was an aspiring lawyer who sat on the Ninth District Federal Court for many years. I saw his name in the news a few years ago, and he is still a judge, at nearly 80 years of age in 2002. The man is a gangster, and a federal judge, and the media and establishment has been lavishing praise on him lately, with awards and hagiographic articles.