John Barbour: Averill Harriman ordered the assassination

[Lauren Johnson]

Barbour quotes Jim Garrison. At about 42:00.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyIgi7uacyI&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1XYTR w6aHtmU6m9lrmLu0TCGcF1oKeWbrjd2wGoidO0B7njrTVGV_76 T0[/video]

[Phil Dagosto]

I manged to ignore the Trump/right-wing cheer leading to listen to this. Here's what stood out to me:

Barbour apparently has something like 67 (don't remember the exact number) boxes of Garrison files that supposedly contain many details of the actual plot but that just prior to that announcement he said that the CIA is refusing to release those files. If that's so then how did he get them? From Garrison? If so, can he just release them himself? Would he be in legal jeopardy if he did so? And if that's true isn't he in jeopardy right now for possessing them? And how did the CIA get Garrison's files in the first place?

The claim about Harriman is intriguing but even Garrison admitted it was speculation and he had no actual proof. This is exactly the kind of thing that the MSM and establishment scholars jump on and use to discredit all assassination research. I'll give Barbour some leeway since he's more of an entertainer than a researcher but I think that there's enough provable evidence to discredit the WC and therefore make a conspiracy the only realistic explanation that venturing into speculation like this does more harm than good.

Same thing with the alleged GHWB photo. I don't know why anyone obsesses over this stuff. Could it be Bush? Yes, but there's at least an equal (or more likely a more than equal) probability that its not. And there's no way to prove either case. Furthermore, even if it is Bush does that mean he was involved in the plot or the "mastermind"? Of course not. Yes, I know there's other circumstantial evidence linking Bush to the CIA and the BOP (both of which I find completely credible) and there's also the issue of him not recalling his whereabouts on 11/22/1963 and trying to implicate some innocent guy. However, none of that proves anything about his alleged involvement in the actual assassination plot. He could have just been disseminating disinformation like other CIA assets. And finally, if he actually were involved in the plot why in the world would he want to be anywhere near Dealey Plaza that day? That kind of reads like one of the dumb criminal stories on Cops.

[Cliff Varnell]

I
The claim about Harriman is intriguing but even Garrison admitted it was speculation and he had no actual proof.

I approach the JFKA like any other homicide case -- thoroughly examine the physical evidence recovered with the body, and be on alert for high level liars.

Max Holland, The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

<quote on>

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright
and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the
assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey
Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an
experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the
unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them
believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.
<quote off>

Harriman lied. There was no meeting of the US Government's top Kremlinologists on 11/22/63.

Charles Bohlen was traveling in Europe, according to his biography.

George Kennan spent the day quietly at Princeton, according to his biography.

Harriman, Bohlen and Kennan were the US Gov'ts top Kremlinologists in1963.

Why did Harriman lie? He's a person of interest unless one entertains the possibility Max Holland fabricated evidence implicating Harrriman, a view I cannot buy.

[Phil Dagosto]

Well that's only proof that Harriman lied about a meeting of top Kremlinologists. That's hardly proof that he "ordered the assassination" of JFK as Barbour claimed.

[Peter Lemkin]

I manged to ignore the Trump/right-wing cheer leading to listen to this. Here's what stood out to me:

Barbour apparently has something like 67 (don't remember the exact number) boxes of Garrison files that supposedly contain many details of the actual plot but that just prior to that announcement he said that the CIA is refusing to release those files. If that's so then how did he get them? From Garrison? If so, can he just release them himself? Would he be in legal jeopardy if he did so? And if that's true isn't he in jeopardy right now for possessing them? And how did the CIA get Garrison's files in the first place?

The claim about Harriman is intriguing but even Garrison admitted it was speculation and he had no actual proof. This is exactly the kind of thing that the MSM and establishment scholars jump on and use to discredit all assassination research. I'll give Barbour some leeway since he's more of an entertainer than a researcher but I think that there's enough provable evidence to discredit the WC and therefore make a conspiracy the only realistic explanation that venturing into speculation like this does more harm than good.

Same thing with the alleged GHWB photo. I don't know why anyone obsesses over this stuff. Could it be Bush? Yes, but there's at least an equal (or more likely a more than equal) probability that its not. And there's no way to prove either case. Furthermore, even if it is Bush does that mean he was involved in the plot or the "mastermind"? Of course not. Yes, I know there's other circumstantial evidence linking Bush to the CIA and the BOP (both of which I find completely credible) and there's also the issue of him not recalling his whereabouts on 11/22/1963 and trying to implicate some innocent guy. However, none of that proves anything about his alleged involvement in the actual assassination plot. He could have just been disseminating disinformation like other CIA assets. And finally, if he actually were involved in the plot why in the world would he want to be anywhere near Dealey Plaza that day? That kind of reads like one of the dumb criminal stories on Cops.

Especially in the beginning of his investigation, but throughout it, Garrison's 'team' was infiltrated by CIA goons left, right and center. At times they all but outnumbered non-Company persons on his staff. It is amazing he accomplished as much as he did, given this fact. He gave some files or copies of files to several persons. I don't know about Barbour specifically, but having Garrison files is legal and one can do anything one wants with them. If Garrison were alive today he'd be very pleased to see the progress made since his investigation, but he did have the basic story and M.O. down, IMO. Some new facts, some new names, some new information has come out since he died - but very very little he stated as his premise of what, who, how has turned out to be wrong in any fundamental way. That is why they had to destroy him......he was on the right track! Only one of Garrison's team to my knowledge is still alive and I have his contact. I'll email him and see what he knows about how and what Barbour might have. By the way, this person I allude to has some files too....although not too much nor anything dynamite. Joan Mellon was quite close to Garrison and her book in him is IMO one of the best and from the horse's mouth.

[Cliff Varnell]

Well that's only proof that Harriman lied about a meeting of top Kremlinologists. That's hardly proof that he "ordered the assassination" of JFK as Barbour claimed.

Of course. There's no hard evidence of any particular person ordering the assassination.

But because Harriman lied about something as important as possible Soviet involvement a few hours after the murder marks him as a legitimate "person of interest" worthy of greater scrutiny.

[Phil Dagosto]

Well that's only proof that Harriman lied about a meeting of top Kremlinologists. That's hardly proof that he "ordered the assassination" of JFK as Barbour claimed.

Of course. There's no hard evidence of any particular person ordering the assassination.

But because Harriman lied about something as important as possible Soviet involvement a few hours after the murder marks him as a legitimate "person of interest" worthy of greater scrutiny.

After re-reading your original post I find that the claim about Harriman lying about the meeting of Kremlinologists to be a pretty weak one. And, by the way, I have very little trust or confidence in anything that Max Holland writes or says.

Let's take the argument by parts.

1. Holland's statement is second hand and he doesn't actually mention a meeting - you do that. Could Harriman have consulted those experts by telephone or telex?

2. Holland does not name any participants so saying that Bohlen and Kennan were either traveling or did not mention any meeting with Harriman does not preclude the possibility that other men were consulted and that Holland is embellishing by using the term "top Kremlinologists". Maybe he was referring to the "top Kremlinologists" available on short notice on 11/22/63.

So I have difficulty concluding that this is hard evidence of Harriman "lying" about the view of Soviet experts about their involvement (or lack of same) in the assassination. I would be more convinced if you had a source other than Holland and had a direct quotation of what Harriman actually told LBJ. And if he was, is your argument that Bohlen and Kennan would have supported the case for Soviet involvement and Harriman either lied about what he was told or avoided consulting them because he knew what they would say? I'm having a hard time with that one.

I can see Harriman going along with the Lone Nut coverup by denying any foreign involvement, in effect, telling LBJ what he wanted to hear (not that there actually was any Soviet or Cuban involvement as we well know). But I can't get from there to him being a major player in the plot without much more convincing evidence. Sure, he's a person of interest because of this Eastern Establishment/big banking roots and his association with the national security state. But we can say that about a lot of other guys as well.

[Scott Kaiser]

A Legend, in conspiracy theories, nonetheless. How close must one come in proving proof, circumstantial evidence, more than a mountain of coincidences without wild speculations? And the beat goes on!

[Scott Kaiser]

Seriously folks, just listen to yourselves AS YOU TYPE PLEASE! Why can't Harriman be taken serious? Because minutes after the assassination he blamed the assassination on the Russians? Well? When hasn't the United States blamed the Russians for anything something happened? Gorbachev! Tear down that wall! Hillary, got spanked by Trump! Blame Russia! Russa, Russa, Russa, No! Cuba did it! Fidel Castro killed Kennedy, (sarcasm) guy's,

Fidel was too damn smart to come out with his speech the day AFTER the assassination he left us no time to prepare for a planned invasion, he left us no possible way to properly blame him for the assassination so we could get the United States to invade Cuba that he was first to blame the United States for killing their own president, that screwed up our schedule for our planned invasion on November 25, 1963, when Castro came out with his bullshit speech, that f*^k everything up for us

, so I was told.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong!

[Jim DiEugenio]

Scott, its the other way around. He says it was not the Russians.