30-03-2010, 01:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 30-03-2010, 03:49 PM by Charles Drago.)
Ed Jewett Wrote:Charles, I swept right past all the other responses without reading them so as not to be influenced by them and and thus could respond to your Post #1 thesis freshly. I am not a student of the events of Dealey Plaza at the same level as almost everyone else here. I do not inherently disagree with what you have said. But what I have gleaned from a host of reading-at-a-distance and the recent excursion through JFKU is that that thesis needs the tiniest bit of tweaking.
The way I grok the process and events -- and this was leant some credence by JFKU -- is that a significant numbers of "inputs" are put into the system, threads or strings if you will, little bits of "action" and covertness that can be yanked if and when some puppeteer deems it useful. In that way, as any given plan or operation evolves, there are a number of players and plausibly deniable assets and events in play which can be "turned", twisted, yanked, or burned and destroyed. [That all of them don't get handled cleanly is simply the residue with which people like the investigators os deep politics and 'state actions against democracy' can then use to deduce what really went down. They become the clues that don't add up, or provide further insight into the actions of the perps when they themsleves are re-turned.]
I think the rustling of anti-Cuban sentiments and actions was real -- certainly for lots of the people involved. That it was never intended to "go live" then must be seen as true or not true only in the light of things that never occurred or tumbled into place.
But then I was never a high-level spook...
Thanks for your valuable response, Ed.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I combined snippets from my original post with reactions to some of your thoughts as rendered above.
DRAGO: The sponsors of the JFK assassination never intended to permit a post-Dallas retaliatory invasion of Cuba[.]
JEWETT: [A] significant numbers of "inputs" are put into the system, threads or strings if you will, little bits of "action" and covertness that can be yanked if and when some puppeteer deems it useful[.]
COMMENT: I emphasized "sponsors" because the Evica/Drago "sponsor/facilitator/mechanic" model of the JFK hit informs just about everything I write about the event -- including my initial post on this thread.
We are in agreement that "inputs," or options, are indeed built into intelligence ops not just during the planning stages, but also post-initiations, as ideas and goals are refined and exigent circumstances are addressed.
In 1963 as today, and for consistent and evolving reasons, a Communist Cuba is as critically important a component in the agendas of the sponsors of the JFK hit and their heirs as is the continuing "ominous" presence of Hugo Chavez. (And let's neither conflate the life of Fidel with the life of the Revolution, nor understand Cuba's Revolutionary structure to be monolithic in its philosophical and operational manifestations.)
In 1963, eliminations of the pre-eminent Caribbean bogeyman and/or Communism in Cuba may indeed have existed as inputs/options for the sponsors and the "treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences" who did their bidding at the highest facilitator level; however, I must argue that there is no evidence to suggest that, at the sponsorship level, they were on the table as desired consequences of the JFK hit.
DRAGO: [The sponsors called for the planting of] false evidence to support a plausible connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and Fidel Castro's government solely in order to promote fears of an American-Soviet nuclear exchange should an honest investigation of the muder be conducted.
JEWETT: I think the rustling of anti-Cuban sentiments and actions was real -- certainly for lots of the people involved. That it was never intended to "go live" then must be seen as true or not true only in the light of things that never occurred or tumbled into place.
COMMENT: Of course anti-Cuban sentiments were manipulated by the sponsors and their highest-level facilitators -- but only for the purposes of creating false sponsors and, minimally, securing pre-hit services from individuals and institutions committed to murdering Castro and destroying the Cuban Communist Party.
How can I be so certain that the eliminations of Castro and the Cuban Communist Party were not part of the sponsor's overall plan? Because Castro and the Cuban Communist Party remain in place to this day, and there is no other credible hypothesis put forward to date to explain why an invasion of Cuba did not follow on the heels of JFK's assassination.
To address one of the non-credible hypotheses commonly trotted out to refute my reasoning on these issues, I included the following in my first post here: "The capture of a living, talking LHO -- as opposed to the display of a shot-while-trying-to-escape assassin's corpse or the presentation of 'evidence' for LHO's successful flight to Cuba -- was insufficient to derail plans for a Cuban invasion."
A "living, talking" LHO never possessed knowledge of the plot sufficient to implicate and give away the games of high level facilitators -- let alone all-but-invulnerable sponsors whose identities we can but grasp at even today. And even if he did, he was effectively silenced from the moment of his arrest to the moment of his execution. And beyond.
You thoughts, please.