Subject: Re: Agents Provocateurs - Letting John in on the Plot Date: 19 Sep 1998 00:47:14 GMT From: NNXR37A@prodigy.com (Clark Wilkins) Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote: > >On 15 Sep 1998 00:20:48 GMT, NNXR37A@prodigy.com (Clark Wilkins) >wrote: > >>6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>>According to his theory all of the men involved with Oswald in New Orleans >>>>>were CIA assets who CIA called on to build a dossier for Oswald to take to >>>>>Cuba. >>>> >>>>Let's see: Bringuier, Bartes, Butler, Quiroga-- what are they all? Could >>>>it be, CIA assets? >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Were they? You're not automatically assuming that anybody who was >>>working with the anti-Castro Cubans was a CIA asset, are you? >>> >>>Why don't you post your evidence on each of these men? >>> >> >>CIA has files on Bringuier, Bartes, and Quiroga, John, and you know that. > > >You were supposed to post evidence that these men were CIA assets. > >And now you are only asserting the CIA "had files" on them. > >Do you have evidence there were "assets" or don't you? > I don't know if we're using the same definition for "asset". If CIA has a file on someone I assume it's for a reason. Bringuier was a DCI contact who, at the very least, provided CIA with information. I would consider him to be an "asset" then of the CIA. Bartes was a CRC officer which was CIA all the way and clearly of value (asset) to CIA. I don't know why CIA had a file on Quiroga. How are you defining "asset"? > >>Ed Butler was known to the CIA's David Atlee Philips and Angleton as well >>as the American Security Council, HUAC, FBI, and Senator Eastland's >>Internal Security SubCommittee. >> > > >I thought you were going to post evidence that he was a CIA asset. >Does just being "known to" a couple of CIA guys make you an "asset?" > >And what do the "American Security Council, HUAC, FBI, and Senator >Eastland's Internal Security SubCommittee" have to do with being "a >CIA asset?" > It's an indication that he gets around in intelligence circles. >This is McCarthyism. Actually, it's McCarthyism applied to >McCarthyites -- which doesn't justify it. > > Guilt by association? You didn't seem to object when Posner applied those same standards to Banister's secretary, Delphine Roberts, in order to discredit her as a witness because she was a racist and her daughter was "fat" and on welfare. >>>And please don't omit any one. >>> >> >>Did I? >> >>>In the meantime, you might check out: >>> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shawcia.txt >>> >> >>Clay Shaw? Why? His name's not on the list and I don't tie him into the >>radio broadcast/street scuffle. >> > > >Please read the memo, and you'll see other names discussed. > Haven't yet, but will do. >>>>> >>>>>IOW, the scuffle, the tv coverage, the radio broadcast -- all of it was >>>>>orchestrated by the CIA! >>>> >> >>With specific emphasis on David Atlee Philips who handled the CIA's radio >>propaganda broadcasts, knew Butler and Banister and possibly Oswald and >>who was assigned by CIA, like Bringuier, to get the FPCC. >> > > >Bringuier was never "assigned" to get the FPCC. His only contact with >the CIA was talking to the DCS. See the URL above, and *please* read >it. > >Of course, he was happy to "get" the FPCC. That role didn't have to >be "assigned" to him. The DRE as an association had, as its stated purpose, to "do battle with the FPCC". Bringuier was a DRE officer obligated to uphold that purpose. > >And what evidence do you have of David Atlee Philips having *anything* >to do with the WDSU debate? You are just free-associating. > > Ed Butler and Guy Banister met with David Atlee Philips to obtain funding for a "Radio Free Cuba" style radio broadcast operation. Eventually, the idea was downsized to producing "Truth Tapes" for replay over approximately 100 southern radio stations. This was funded by the Anastasia Samoza's CIA friendly Ochsner Clinic. Carlos Bringuier participated in producing these "Truth Tapes" and, unless I'm mistaken, the August 21, 1963 debate between Oswald, Bringuier, and Stuckey was produced as a "Truth Tape". >>>>Not necessarily. It was organized by the DRE. Some CIA agent may or may >>>>not have encouraged it. It doesn't necesarily have to connect directly to >>>>what subsequently happened in Mexico City; just indirectly. >>>> >>> >>> >>>The scuffle was organized by the DRE??!! >>> >>>I think you need to present some evidence for this. In fact, it >>>wasn't organized AT ALL. >>> >>> >> >>A significant difference of opinion. Oswald's letter of Aug 4 indicates >>it was. > >No, althought the letter does suggest that it was provoked. By >Oswald. > You need to substitute the word "planned" for "provoked" in the above. > >>Lt. Martello believed so also. > > >I have now posted his testimony. He did not believe it was >"organized." That implies two or more people. He believed that >Oswald had set it up and provoked the anti-Castro Cubans. > >All the conspiracy books quote him out of context, and misleadingly. > I took your post and showed that he did believe it was "setup" (his word even). While you are correct that he believed Oswald did the setting up of this obvious propaganda and publicity stunt, Martello did not know at the time that Bribnguier was a propaganda and publicity officer with whom Oswald had just met with and who was an expert on arranged street demonstrations. Somehow, you keep leaving this information out. > >>At best you can argue that Oswald >>organized it on his own but I can just as effectively argue that Bringuier >>was a willing participant to the planning. >> > > >But you happen to have no *evidence* that Bringuier was involved in >the planning. > In a previous post I presented evidence that Bringuier was involved in the planning of the street confrontation, the televising of his trial, and the radio debate - evidence you failed to refute. Now, John, present your *evidence* that Bringuier was not involved in the planning. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Oswald was - however witting or unwitting - being manipulated by CIA in >>>>>order to use him to go to Mexico City and carry out an operation to >>>>>discredit the FPCC! (As they had mentioned to the FBI they were planning >>>>>to do.) >>>> >>>>Well, the CIA wrote a memorandum just before Oswald left to Mexico City >>>>chock full of FPCC credentials saying they needed to discredit the FPCC in >>>>foreign countries. A CIA asset who knew him was right behind him in line. >>> >>> >>>OK, it's the Spook Buddy System. The CIA is unwilling to send it's >>>spooks down to get a tourist card one at a time. They send them in >>>pairs. >>> >> >>Stu's conclusion, not mine. I see no link between Gaudet and Oswald's >>trip to Mexico. > >Good. > > >>However, they're standing in line together can be >>explained. If one assumes that CIA in NO submitted its September travel >>requests to CIA HQ at the same time it reasons that those requests >>approved would be returned simultaneously. If Gaudet, Oswald (and Oresta >>Pena) all had their travel plans (for unrelated missions) approved on the >>same day, then it's not too surprising they should apply for their visas >>at the same time. >> > >Entirely supposition. > Point conceded. I notice you didn't disprove it though. >And where did you get the notion that Gaudet and Pena would have their >travel "approved" by the CIA? > > By the observation that Pena, Gaudet, and Oswald, all living in NO and known to CIA, are applying for visas at the same time. If their foreign travel was on behalf of CIA then it reasons someone in CIA requested approval for travel vouchers from CIA HQ which were simultaneously approved resulting in the three men requesting their visas at, or near, the same time. Note, I'm not saying it happened that way. Stu noted Gaudet and Oswald being in line at the same time and I offered this as a possible explanation for it. I'm sure you'll argue it was random coincidence. But just how many people do you think you will convince of it? >>>You're not actually saying that Gaudet was an agent of the CIA, are >>>you? He was in fact a rather disreputable character who lied about >>>his CIA connections. He did have some, but not any as extensive as he >>>claimed. >>> >> >>Gaudet provided the CIA with economic and political news/intelligence >>obtained through Shaw's trade Mart, where he officed. Originally, Shaw, >>himself, provided the CIA with these reports until 1957. After he joined >>"assassination Inc" (Permindex) the CIA could not afford to have Shaw >>reporting to them any further. > > >Permindex was not "assassination Inc." This was Communist propaganda. > >Please post some evidence from a reliable source that Permindex was >ever involved in any assassination. And Garrison isn't "reliable." >Neither is Paese Sera. > > That will take too long. I'm supposed to read your "Shaw" post, remember? I can only donate so much time to this. >>Gaudet took over this function until 1962. >> In 1963 he still had some CIA contacts and believed he was with the >>"company". > > >"Believed" he was with the Company? You mean "claimed" to be with the >CIA. > Let's take a look at that claim, John. The CIA paid Gaudet for intelligence information for a number of years. Now if was being paid money by the CIA to collect intelligence I might believe I was a CIA agent too. If Gaudet truly believed he was working for the CIA (and he was) then he really wasn't lying when he claimed he was a CIA agent. >He lied. > > John, you need to post your proof that Gaudet was a "disreputable character" and a "liar" as you call him. Because if your only evidence is he claimed he was a CIA agent when wasn't, then you realize you have a problem, right? >>Gaudet's circle of associates includes Clay Shaw, Guy >>Banister, Ed Butler and the Ochsner Clinic (Anastasia Samoza's political >>front). >> > > >And your evidence for this is? > >If it's "Gaudet said so," you realize you have a problem, right? > >..John Not unless you can demonstrate the problem or provide proof that Gaudet didn't know Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, and Ed Butler (Whom, by the way, he correctly called "Junior"). .Clark > >