The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis

[Charles Drago]

That should be obvious master Charles. Nagell was an unexpected wild card and loose cannon. He came out of nowhere and was willing to shoot a gun in a bank according to his outrage over the planned treasonous assassination of a US president. A little more outrage and he could have shot Oswald in order to defeat their plot.

"Outrage"??? You know nothing about Nagell's motivations as he himself described them. "More" outrage? Does the admonition, "You cannot modify an absolute"* ring any bells?

You seem to assume an absolutist position that Dallas was guaranteed to happen, but both reality and CIA don't work that way.

STOP with this CIA nonsense! It was and is a tool -- an agenda facilitator. It is NOT a monolithic entity and it was NOT a Sponsor of the assassination.

And if you're going to make the claim that you know how "the CIA" works, I'm very interested to know when you plan on backing it up.

The "guaranteed" part is your misinterpretation.

It is possible Oswald might have been exposed prior to Dallas. The Chicago Police could have busted Vallee earlier. The reason they didn't was because they needed to keep Vallee a live asset for CIA up to the last moment, just in case.

Pure speculation -- which is precisely what I invited when I started this thread. But it is so undernourished by in-depth, sophisticated appreciations of how things work that it simply cannot pass the laugh test. Sorry, Albert. I don't like how these exchanges are developing, but I'm at wit's end trying to get you to think more deeply about matters at hand.

There's no doubt Dallas was the better city. CIA used Dallas because the political climate gave them a feeling of justification. They repeated this process in this century by using a Texan president for the worst fascist American administration. Dallas was ideal because Texas rednecks availed themselves to CIA fascist military control. These personality types tend to not let a minor thing like democracy get in the way of their willingness to take orders unquestioningly.

"Better" city. No.

And again, for the love of God, the CIA "controlled" NOTHING exept facilitation-related matters! Not then. Not now.

And now you've got me doing it -- referring to "the CIA" as if it were a monolithic entity.

Was Vallee part of the false defector program? Touched by HTLINGUAL? An applicant to Albert Schweitzer College? Did he marry a blood relative of a GRU officer? Was he rubbing elbows with LCN-connected "types"? Pro-Castro Cubans? Anti-Castro cubans? Was he an FBI informant?

No, but that's not the point. If Oswald was compromised CIA had another iron in the fire with Vallee. You can't say for certain that Oswald would not have been exposed. What you have to understand is what CIA needed the most is JFK dead.

It is PRECISELY the point. Vallee was not an iron in any fire. He was a straw -- as in STRAW MAN. No depth. No heft. A chimera. A ruse.

And stop telling me what I have to understand. Until you cease and desist from writing about the CIA as a prime mover of anything, you have zero to say to me about this case and deep politics in general.

The only thing "the CIA" needed was to do the job assigned to "it." And that job was not to kill JFK, but to facilitate an operation that would include the murder of JFK in a very specific fashion -- in Dallas, with LHO as the patsy.

Vallee's brain damage is much more valuable to CIA than any Oswald red-dipping because they can mold anything they wish out of it and would have.

This paragraph has helped me to decide that there is no reasoning with you. It reflects layers of ignorance and, I must say, arrogance that are all but impenetrable. You will think what you think. My honest wish for you is that, in time, you will come to realize just how sophmoric and personally undermining these sorts of conclusions were/are to you.

Then stop trotting him out to bolster the unbolsterable.

Careful Drago, you are close to speaking in open contempt of one of the best conspiracy book authors.

This is the last straw. My respect for Mr. Douglass is nearly boundless. I repeat, with emphasis: My respect for Mr. Douglass is NEARLY boundless.

I shall not attempt to speak for him; my educated guess is that he would agree wholeheartedly with this warning: The Douglass conception of the JFK conspiracy is a human conception, and thus imperfect.

Otherwise, I choose to accept your "Careful Drago" [sic] construction as a tongue-in-cheek offering. Because if you were serious, I would respond by directing you to engage in onanistic copulation.

Honestly Charles, I think you are traipsing around your baroque chandelier-decorated conspiracy dining room and sipping the champagne of the high class conspirators while missing the fact the conspiracy would have been just as effective if done in the concrete basement.

As wrong as wrong could be -- about the effectiveness business. Shallow and, in a disturbing way, laughable.

And again, I'll choose to ascribe your identification of my drinking partners to ignorance and inartful literary construction.

No offense taken.

Goodbye.
__________________

With the exceptions of ice, lime, tonic, soda, dry vermouth, and Lillet.

[Albert Doyle]

STOP with this CIA nonsense! It was and is a tool -- an agenda facilitator. It is NOT a monolithic entity and it was NOT a Sponsor of the assassination.

It's my belief that it is important to speak of those CIA conspirators as "CIA". The reason this is important is because in America we have an important Constitutional framework where the government is required to answer to the exact same rule of law as the people. If you observe legal methods in America, government does not hesitate to hold institutions responsible in order to hold them accountable for what their individual members do. If the conspiracy happened under CIA's roof then they are the ones responsible. It is my opinion that avoiding this process in order to seek those individuals responsible only helps the intended effect of plausible deniability and hiding the culprits inside the shadows of CIA's multiple compartments.

I say in return, with bowing respect, that forcing the issue into strained definitions of Sponsorship and Facilitator when faced with obvious enough guilt is also a violation of what you say. We both know the long list of CIA suspects from Hunt to Angleton and onward. For the sake of space, the use of "CIA" works in both regards.

The "guaranteed" part is your misinterpretation.

How? You haven't shown where I'm wrong. The point stands, Dallas was not a guarantee according to the Oswald plan. If the Oswald plan fell through because a pile of bricks fell on Oswald what would they have done?

Pure speculation -- which is precisely what I invited when I started this thread. But it is so undernourished by in-depth, sophisticated appreciations of how things work that it simply cannot pass the laugh test. Sorry, Albert. I don't like how these exchanges are developing, but I'm at wit's end trying to get you to think more deeply about matters at hand.

With due respect Charles, the above is opinion. I don't see where you've answered the point. It's my opinion that the "in-depth, sophisticated appreciations" you call for is exactly what I'm doing. If Oswald had a pile of bricks fall on him in Dallas would the conspirators have activated Chicago as the real assassination? I think they would have. In my opinion it is now in your court to stop that pile of bricks.

And again, for the love of God, the CIA "controlled" NOTHING exept facilitation-related matters! Not then. Not now.

That seems like semantics to me. How did you put it? "They never used guns. Well, maybe to shoot him." Well I could equally say "The never used CIA. Well, maybe except where they used CIA." Funny, I though I saw a lot of CIA involvement and revealing CIA tactics in this.

My question to you would be if CIA did this internally and was the Sponsor do you think the other alleged Sponsors would have protested and exposed them out of principle?

It is PRECISELY the point. Vallee was not an iron in any fire. He was a straw -- as in STRAW MAN. No depth. No heft. A chimera. A ruse.

I disagree with that. I think the reason Vallee was set-up in an exactly identical high-building with Cuban exile crossfire scenario was because the plot had a real aspect to it and was put in place with the possibility it would be executed. If you think about it there was nothing stopping them from doing it if Vallee hadn't been exposed. Those sniper rifles Vallee had were not made out of straw.

The only thing "the CIA" needed was to do the job assigned to "it." And that job was not to kill JFK, but to facilitate an operation that would include the murder of JFK in a very specific fashion -- in Dallas, with LHO as the patsy.

But Charles, what if the CIA assignment was to run a real Chicago operation up until it was called-off for Dallas? Sure the intended preferable city could have been Dallas, but that doesn't mean that Chicago definitely wasn't an alternate city. In fact, establishing an alternate would conform to the sophisticated back-up such complex agencies are known to practice.


I don't want to be judged as unworthy or in cretinous contempt of higher analyses because I actually agree with those practices as more effective in discovering the real truth. However I'm of the personal belief that there comes a time where the application of those more complex investigative methods hinders the obvious as delivered in whatever form. In my mind useful revolutions never originate from the decorated halls of the intellectual elite but are usually most effectively carried-out by the common population and that which it understands by its constitutional understanding. Really, it's the basis of our democracy. The same one Kennedy's assassins overthrew. In light of this, in my opinion, it is somewhat counterproductive to confine the arguments to the sensibilities and form of that group which never acts on such matters and is probably a good way to keep the solving of the assassination from ever entering the venues occupied by those groups that best carry-out the necessary solutions...

[Phil Dragoo]

It's taken NASA six years to position itself to photograph Mercury.

I have read for years on the topic under discussion and with the Dragonian admonition to not mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon, I am better positioned to view what is, not what conditioning dictates we are to observe.

It isn't the CIA's green felt. It is deftly manipulated by the croupier. Who works for the house.

I just got off the bus from Mayberry.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

And, I think, a brilliant one.

The False Sponors you catalog were "in" it to the degree that they could A) sow confusion among pre- and post-attack investigators (of all stripes), and B) provide specific, limited logistical support.

We are in agreement, I think, that these individuals/groups had absolutely NO IDEA of the deep conspiracy structure and their TRUE roles in it.

As for your speculation regarding Asian-based operatives in the plot, know that you've ventured into very intriguing terra incognita. If you haven't already done so, look at Pakse Base (southern Laos), a certain "Jim," the confusion regarding a "Major Lopez," and the controversy surrounding Humberto Castillo-Leon.

There is a good chance that most, if not all, of the above was created to lead "serious" researchers off on a dead-end trail. No matter how you cut it, these are under-researched leads.

Yes we agree on these, they did not have a clue what happened and some very powerful invididuals outside the US Government (with connections inside the Government and certainly not the Mafia) hijacked their operation, and left the army, the CIA as an organization and the secret service, at least some of them, wondering what the hell happened. The army that was running the war games during 911 felt the same chilling emotion when everything went wrong. And don't forget London 7-7 when an anti-terrorist exercice was run during the metro attacks. A pattern is emerging. You don't need many conspirators just a few in key positions, able to manipulate the rest.
I am going to check the references regarding Laos and major Lopez. I still think that it was not the CIA division concerned with Cuba inolved in this, but the ones from the far east, associated perhaps with Helliwell.
Regarding Oswald. People wonder if he was CIA or FBI informant, i would say he was used by both CIA Counterintelligence and FBI's division 5 since Angleton was cooperating with Sullivan. I would doubted that he was an informant for CI/SIG directly, most likely he was working for the Domestic Operations Division.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Let's assume for the sake of the exercise, that Oswald's visit to the Cuban and Russian embassies was part of a legitimate CIA operation against FPCC and Castro/Soviet Union. What would have been the benefit of:
1. Sending Oswald himself to visit the embassies
2. Having an Oswald imposter (short, blond Oswald, but a different from the imposter that called the Soviet Union embassy speaking poor Russian) to visit the embassies
3. Sending both at different times in both embassies or sending the short blond in the Cuban and the real Oswald in the Soviet embassy.

[Bernice Moore]

a bit i found fwiw.from ....a post made on the web....."When FBI Director Hoover learned of this lie, he was not amused. Eighteen days after the assassination, he censured, demoted or transferred everyone in the FBI that had been touched by the Mexico City story. Hoover was still fuming about it in January 1964, when his subordinates sent him a memo on illegal CIA operations in the US which stated that the CIA had promised to keep the Bureau informed. Hoover pulled out his pen and, in his characteristic large, thick handwriting scrawled, "OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can't forget CIA withholding the French espionage activities in USA nor the false story re Oswald's trip in Mexico City only to mention two of their instances of double dealing." 16

and

"at 10:00 am on Saturday, November 23, President Johnson asked FBI Director Hoover if there was anything new concerning Oswald's visit in Mexico City (it's unclear when Johnson first had learned of the Mexico City visit). It was at this point - just 22 hours after the assassination-- that Hoover told Johnson about the Kostikov link and that it was not Oswald's voice on the tape; he had been impersonated."

so there WAS a recording and it wasn't Oswald's! JEH knew it, LBJ knew it - one day after JFK got assassinated! What game was the CIA playing ?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/newman.html

and

"No, that's one angle that's very confusing, for this reasonwe have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Mexico_City_Tapes

[Albert Doyle]

Let's assume for the sake of the exercise, that Oswald's visit to the Cuban and Russian embassies was part of a legitimate CIA operation against FPCC and Castro/Soviet Union. What would have been the benefit of:
1. Sending Oswald himself to visit the embassies

Hypothetically, to establish Oswald as a familiar face for Mexican Fair Play For Cuba Committee activities.

2. Having an Oswald imposter (short, blond Oswald, but a different from the imposter that called the Soviet Union embassy speaking poor Russian) to visit the embassies

To create a scene at the embassies in order to establish Oswald as a nut who would never get a visa to either Cuba or Mexico. This killed two birds with one stone because it established a record of Oswald seeking an escape route to two communist countries while blocking any possibility of any Oswald getting cold feet and scooting before the assassination.

3. Sending both at different times in both embassies or sending the short blond in the Cuban and the real Oswald in the Soviet embassy.

If the real CIA Oswald double ever got exposed it could be defeated by pointing to Mexico where two Oswald's were suspected but the photographic surveillance shows the second Oswald was a case of mistaken identity and could never have been mistaken for the real Oswald.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

What i am trying to say, is to forget the assassination plot for a moment, and concentrate on the CIA operation against FPCC. To begin with, it was an authorized CIA operation and not all those involved were part of a plot.
As Newman pointed out it was Angleton who hijacked a legitimate operation. And it was the imposter that phoned the Soviet embassy speaking poor Russian that created the World War III threat, not the short blond Oswald that visited the Cuban consulate.
Why not use Oswald himself as a continuation to his bona fides in New Orleans and to use an imposter? I said in a previous post that the plan, at least what i believe, was to have Oswald threat to kill Kennedy inside the Cuban embassy and then link him to a weapon that might have used against the President-not necessarily to kill him-to provoke an invasion in Cuba, a joint CIA-Militarry-SS operation. I would have expected that person to be Oswald himself, either wise why going into all this trouble to stage his New Orleans charades?
Besides both the Cubans and the Soviets must have known Oswald from New Orleans and his radio debates, so they would have not believed for a second that the imposter was the real one. So the operation would have failed, so i don't understand what they were trying to achieve.
And what if the imposter turned out to be Alek Hiddell?

[Albert Doyle]

Newman speculates that the imposter Oswald who called the Soviet Embassy may have been a Mexico City CIA station employee who was not in on the plot and was doing a fishing expedition to find out what the heck Oswald was going in there for? The questions he asked were questions that research shows Oswald had already resolved, but were the type of question that someone trying to fish for Oswald's purpose would have asked.

Judyth Baker says Oswald was trying to carry a cancer virus to Cuba to kill Castro.

[Charles Drago]

May I ask one and all to observe what might best be termed "thread discipline" and continue the Mexico City discussion on a new thread so dedicated?

While there is in these exchanges to which I object, at the level of subtext, a connection to my original Chicago Plot Hypothesis theme -- the complexities of LHO's combination of background, sheepdipping, and doubling/tripling are what make him the perfect patsy; further, they are not present in Vallee, a strong argument in favor of my interpretation of Chicago -- it is not enough to justify the presence of this discussion here.

Thank you.