I’m pleased to announce that the research monograph by David Boylan and myself is now available for download and reading. The paper is a deep dive into two leads originally identified and developed by British researcher Matthew Smith.

I worked with Matthew for some years in trying to expand on the research he had done, at that time with some great help from an FAA volunteer who chose to remain anonymous and from Alan Kent. Pursuing these leads has been a process occurring literally over decades, reinvigorated by some major document research by David Boylan only in the last couple of years.

It is David’s detailed investigation of CIA documents from the JMWAVE station in Miami as well as from CIA Special Affairs Staff which enabled much of what you will see in the paper. In addition, Gary Murr’s work on the AMWORLD project (which he allowed me to extract from for a chapters in my book Shadow Warfare) as well as his related work supporting this paper were both breakthroughs in documenting the historical context for the Red Bird leads paper.

Finally, members of the Dealey Plaza UK JFK group were kind enough to agree to serialize the paper in their Journal, the Dealey Plaza Echo and to make it available on their WEB site. Given that the original work was done by DPUK member Matthew Smith, and that I worked with the group for years I’m particularly pleased to see the paper made available though them. This sort of historical research can only come from a group effort of dedicated people, and in this case is made available in a group effort as well.

So, enough introduction, take a look at this link and I hope you find it as interesting to read as it was challenging for us to research and document.

Red Bird Airfield Leads

6 responses »

  1. AnthonyM says:

    Hi
    Just on lead 1 (still reading lead 2) , I think your identification of Vilifana and Chavez is persuasive. It’s another very good example of how the most credible and well evidenced leads tend to link back to this group around the DRE and JMWAVE.
    It’s very interesting how the process of setting up AMWORLD could well have given a practical means of the tactical team going ‘off the grid’ before the assassination without arousing suspicion within the anti-Castro and CIA groups, and then exfiltration later.
    Congratulations on another excellent piece of work.

    • larryjoe2 says:

      Thanks Anthony, that is really appreciated as this sort of research takes years – decades in this instance – to come together, and even then it takes the most recent work done by David to find the final pieces to bring sense of it.

      For me its just another example of totally independent leads and sources all pointing back to the same place in the end, which is what I find most convincing. Early on in this research I wrestled with different destinations for the aircraft (some of the planes January processed no doubt went to Africa for new CIA operations there) and over the years focused on different potential pilots.

      In the end though, documented AMWORLD activities just brought everything together for Lead 1 and led back to Cuban operations and Miami, as do so many of the other leads.

      I think you will find Lead 2 equally interesting, certainly it took David and I down a route which was new to us and into some names that are new as well – and to a possible explanation for what has long remained mysterious in regard to the details of what happened in between New Orleans and and in Dallas in regard to Lee Oswald.

  2. AnthonyM says:

    Hi
    I’d just like to say I found the whole paper interesting and well put together.
    Your work on ‘lead 2’ highlights a curious aspect of Oswald’s behaviour in the September to November 1963 period. During that time we have a series of incidents which contain behaviour with fairly high ‘strangeness’. Whether we are talking about the Mckeown incident, Mexico City, the Odio incident or Red Bird etc, a common denominator is that the behaviour was such the apparent objective was unlikely to be achieved.
    What was achieved were a set of memorable events that were likely to be reported in various ways (e.g. Mexico internally in the various intelligence services involved, others more publicly in due course). Even his apparent car test drive was more memorable than productive. Perhaps that was the point (or points, as Mexico City seems a bit different to the others).
    This is also the time period when his overt pro-Cuban FPCC activity appeared to stop abruptly after leaving New Orleans.
    In other words a very distinct shift in behaviour coinciding with the move from New Orleans to Dallas?
    Do you think that is a fair assessment?

    • larryjoe2 says:

      Yes, I think that is certainly fair – his support for Cuba went from being highly public to being relatively covert and increasingly radical (if we accept some of the incidents reported) over the next two months. Then once he is in Dallas even that ceases and it appears that his agenda becomes purely personal.

      It appears to me that we have to accept the fact that he was conflicted given the birth of his second daughter and was weighing his priorities. Marina may have had a good bit to do with that. To what extent he was approached and received an offer to go on to Cuba as he appears to have truly wanted to do is hard to track because he literally took himself off the grid in Dallas, being separated from Marina.

      Did Oswald put himself and his Cuba goal back into play in November, if Lead 2 really played out the way it appears it seems that he did. Which of course would have put him back into any propaganda game that had been in play and in doing so made him much easier to frame.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Another great read, Larry. Really appreciate all the work that was put into this.

    In the endnotes you made reference to a interview you did with Ruben Carbajol. Have you talked about that elsewhere and I missed it? What was the gist of your conversation with him regarding Morales?

    Best,
    Chris

  4. larryjoe2 says:

    I’m pretty sure I cite Reuben as a source in the 2010 paperback edition of SWHT but I didn’t make much of it in the copy as what he said was largely a repetition of conversations he had with Bob Dorff (who first contacted him and conversed with him over the years as a follow up to some investigative work he had hired Bradly Ayers to do on Morales). After the introduction Reuben was nice, we had a couple of lengthy phone conversations and he invited me out to visit but I was still working at the time and I also felt he had related all he knew about Morales during the period of interest to JFK research – after all they were boyhood friends but only saw each other periodically over the following years. Reuben did confirm something to me that he had not told Dorff initially or even after several years and that was that independently of conversations with his Morales lawyer, which has been written about separaely, that in personal conversations Reuben had pressed Morales to the point of Morales saying that he had indeed been personally involved with JFK’s death – but he gave no details and Reuben apparently didn’t ask for any (probably a wise choice on his part). He trusted Morales enough that he simply took it as a true statement and left it at that.

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 )

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