I’ve not been blogging much the last couple of weeks, but things have been busy. I recently did a two hour show with Chuck Ochelli on Someone Would Have Talked and most recently a lengthy interview with Alan Dale on JFK Facts on the evolution of all my JFK related work, from the earliest research though the three book trilogy that ends with Tipping Point. If you would like to take a listen you can find that interview here:

In regard to Tipping Point, while I had not anticipated it being able to carry it much further at this late date, new work by David Boylan appears to offer some real potential for further developing both the leads which Matthew Smith opened up in regard to incidents involving Ray January and Red Bird Airport. We are both pursuing that, its the sort of thing that involves deep document dives and lots of dot connecting, but it has the potential of further closing the loop on the individuals most directly involved with the Dallas attack, and in the effort to connect the assassination to Lee Oswald and Cuban sponsorship.

Beyond that, some of the readers engaged with Tipping Point have expressed a desire to expand and enhance the book’s index. If you have any interest in working on a team to develop an expanded index, including your preferred persons or topics of interest, please drop me a note at larryjoe@westok.net

In other work I remain very much involved with two teams working on research projects related to UFOs/UAPs – one dealing with a statistical characteristics study and the other with and effort to evaluate patterns of reports with the goal of assessing intentions, particularly intentions related to national security. Both are multiyear projects requiring lots of grunt work doing collections, database analytics and graphing. Its going to be a good while before we have something solid enough to put into a paper, but in the interim I’ll try to at least share some observations as we progress.

7 responses »

  1. James Stubbs says:

    Hi Larry. Great interview, enjoyed it very much. Can you give a clue about the nw information that you all are working on in re Ray January and Red Bird airport?

  2. larryjoe2 says:

    January gave the FBI a report of a man and a woman who showed up only a couple of days prior to the assassination, wanting to rent a Piper Cub for a flight into Mexico, possibly the Yucatan. – he was suspicious that they might be planning to steal the aircraft and fly to Cuba. He reported the incident because he got a look at a third person, a young man who had stayed in their old car and felt him to have been Lee Oswald. Tthe FBI proved unresponsive to that lead – instead seeming to want to associate January himself with Jack Ruby.

    Given their lack of interest in the aircraft rental and an Oswald connection, he determined not to relate another suspicious incident of that week, involving the transfer of a cargo aircraft. I discuss both leads in SWHT, but in the Wheaton Lead paper and in Tipping Point we focus on the second, the cargo aircraft incident. David and I now think we have a final candidate for the Cuban associated with that based on remarks from January’s limited observations.

    Given David’s work and some information I’ve had for a long time we also think we may be able to speculate on a connection to the the man and woman who tried to rent the Piper Cub – if correct both leads would provide independent corroboration for the persons of interest named in Tipping Point.

  3. John F. Davies says:

    As a long time student of History, one of the things I’ve noticed is that whenever rogue elements act illegally against a legitimate Government , they often use an existing plan or institution as the means to carry out their act. For example, another great assassination conspiracy, the 1944 plot against Hitler, used an existing contingency plan to deal with internal disorder, ( Operation Valkyrie), as the basis to carry out their conspiracy.

    The plot against JFK also used elements of an existing plan ( Operation Mongoose), as
    a means to carry out the murder of the President. As the growing body of evidence rules out Oswald as the prime suspect in the assassination, the more detailed revelations on ZR Rifle and the active plots against Castro give the public a possible and more credible alternative. These were basically teams of selected operatives who were training and preparing to take out a head of state with coordinated rifle fire. It would have been a simple matter to change the Head of State. And easier to do it in your own backyard.
    The research I’ve read and heard here apparently seems to point in this direction.

    As for the cover up itself, there can be no doubt that within 24 hours after the fact, the leadership at Langley pretty much figured out who the real perpetrators were, and fearing a monstrous public reaction, did all in their power to cover up ANY links to the Intelligence Establishment. With its very existence at stake, the CIA did everything it could to assist the new Johnson administration with making Oswald the scapegoat. So much as to have Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission. I’m basing these conclusions from personal experiences in the Intel world during my own time in the military. Back then from what I saw, most often than not, sensitive information was classified so as to protect the image, credibility, and reputation of the National Security Establishment. So then as now, with the JFK assassination being the classic example.

  4. AnthonyM says:

    I also enjoyed listening to the interview. The discussion at the end around the various indications that the operational people were themselves ‘played’ by others with no intention of setting off an invasion of Cuba was very interesting. At the moment there are rather too many possible scenarios in play for comfort in terms of who might have been in that ‘strategic’ group and an area I’m personally quite interested in is trying to find ways of ruling out (or more realistically, at least reducing the probability) of some of these.
    Presumably there would need to be personal connections between a small number of individuals in the ‘operational’ and ‘strategic’ layers that were sufficiently strong to engender a very high level of trust? I do wonder why there doesn’t appear to have been revenge or retribution directed against the ‘usual suspects’ after the fact, which may imply these two layers (if the strategic layer existed at all) was unknown to almost everyone involved operationally, with someone in both layers playing a double game rather convincingly.
    Do you think that logic seem reasonable?

    • larryjoe2 says:

      I’ve wrestled and continue to wrestle with the two different levels you describe for some time, interestingly in an extended conversation with Chuck Ochelli last night he led me to clarify some things that I really had not put in print (or thought through for myself) that begin to make more sense of how things might well have played between the strategic level of the Agency and its the field level where things like assassination actually take place. Interestingly the conversation was in regard to NEXUS but it takes me back to what I was tying to get at from the beginning which is when and how CIA officers become involved in murders – which are never carried out by actual CIA personnel but always by surrogates. When the interview is available to link to I’ll do a couple of posts to see if I can clarify my thoughts (and intuition) on that point.

      As to “revenge and retribution”….first off you can only have that if somebody feels they have betrayed, knows some level of detail about who, and is in a position to take action. Since I posit that the senior levels of the Agency and in fact the government only suspected betrayal but chose not to investigate at all in fear of the consequences that would leave us looking downward for revenge, to somebody in the actual conspiracy who felt betrayed (as far as I can tell the people involved in the actual attack team were elated, and many remained convinced they had been justified and were proud of their action).

      As I’ve written before, there is some thought that Martino (and secondarily from Wheaton) and a few others did over time come to feel those who they were in immediate contact with might have manipulated them, had a separate agenda and made promises of actions that were never going to happen – interestingly enough that could include both Morales and Roselli.

      We know what happened to Roselli, Morales told his friend that he was afraid of “people he had worked with” and may well have been poisoned during a trip to the East Coast, Rueben though so at least. Even Harvey appears to have been very afraid of something in his final years, his biographer makes that clear. Personally I suspect that all three men did have something to fear, they had manipulated people they worked with, made promises, and “used” surrogates. They very likely did have reasons to be afraid – not of their old enemies the Soviets or Communists, but of those they had indeed worked with in the early sixties.

  5. John F. Davies says:

    In the interview you mention the subtle ways that the leadership of the National Security Establishment direct their subordinates. How no specific action is asked for, but rather the desired end. At the time of the early 1960s for instance, the stated goal of the U.S. Government was to overthrow Castro. How it was to be executed was never spoken or elaborated on, just the objective itself. This mindset can be best summed up by a famous quote from General Curtis Lemay-
    “I don’t want to hear about any of your problems, all I’m interested in is results.”

    So many other crimes throughout the historic record show the same pattern whenever the Establishment comes under an identifiable threat from within. For instance, almost a millennia ago, a certain English King by the name of Henry II had to deal with a threat to the Establishment in the person of a reform minded Archbishop of Canterbury named Thomas Becket. Frustrated with Becket’s interference, an exasperated King Henry famously cried out-” Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Priest?”
    The Barons who were sitting with the King heard his words and subsequently took matters into their own hands, murdering the Archbishop in Canterbury Cathedral as he was about to say Vespers.
    Indeed, this method is as old as history.

    Interestingly, the movie “Becket” starring Richard Burton in the title role and Peter O’Toole as his King, and which premiered about 6 months after the assassination, has some shocking resonance with contemporary events.

    “It is time for all of us to do penance.”
    Peter O’Toole as Henry II

  6. Anonymous says:

    Well I’d have to say that style of command (attitude) is not unknown outside the level of the people who sit on the NSC or head Federal agencies, I’ve personally heard languages almost identical to the LeMay quote from from Master Sgts. in the Air Force, in Corporate board rooms, and from high school superintendents.

    One of the more egregious examples/variants is actually visible in a message from former State Dept Chief Henry Kissinger to the U.S. Embassy staff in Brazil, to be passed along to the General there who had just taken control in a coup and were floating the idea that they would need to use brutal methods (read “death squads”) against left wing opponents of all stripes. His direction was that he certainly could not tell them what they should do- but they should do whatever was necessary to consolidate power before Congress came back into session and might act to apply restraints of various sorts, including the CIA support that had aided the coup.

    Your Henry II quote is point on in regard to similar statements from American Presidents, State and CIA Dept heads – even statements made that were made in moments of frustration and acted on by eager and aggressive subordinates making their own interpretations.

    Of course translations could work in the other direction as well, one classic is the Chief of CIA Western hemisphere writing a memo very directly stating that Castro should be eliminated, when he boosted the memo upstream the CIA Director simply changed the wording to substitute “removed” for “eliminated”. And the Western Hemisphere chief was indeed the one who signed off on the money for the first poison plots to kill Castro, the minor change in working certainly had not confused him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s