Death by Org Chart

Fred Litwin
6 minutes ago
21 min read

Paul Bleau's two-part series on "Assassination Inc." sets a new low standard for JFK assassination research.

Oliver Stone, Vincent Salandria, and Jim Garrison thought that by ascertaining the motives of the people who wanted JFK dead, that you could deduce the conspiracy. And thus was born the CIA/Military Industrial Complex conspiracy theory.

"The Way It Wasn't" -- George Lardner on Oliver Stone's "JFK"

Monika Wiesak's Dreadful History

Paul Bleau has now gone one step further. He asks the question -- who had the skills to pull off the conspiracy -- and the answer allows him to pinpoint the guilty parties.

In this essay, the author argues that one can deduce the most important facts about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK by answering the following questions: 1) What skills were required to pull it off? 2) Who possessed the skill, authority and connections required to accomplish it?

And how to do this?

Key to the research is: 1) Similar case analysis about both suspicious activity during the year before the assassination and its aftermath, as well as other covert regime changes and assassinations carried out by persons related to the JMWAVE network. 2) An analysis of 1963 CIA org-charts.

Suspicious activity? Sounds overly broad to me -- just about anything is suspicious to conspiracy theorists, no? And why the focus on 1963 CIA org-charts? What kind of an analysis does one do on organization charts?

I can tell you from my experience at Intel Corporation that org charts do not tell the whole story. I remember that there were two heads of the networking division within I worked, both at the top of the org chart. But one was really in charge, and he was the person who had the ear of upper management. The org chart may not tell you much about the various dotted lines (informal reporting arrangements) that may exist, not does it tell you about budgets and priorities. I had many direct reports at Intel, but not everybody was equal.

And those two paragraphs lead Bleau to the following conclusions:

Based on this we can conclude: that the power brokers of the Cold War era saw JFK as a threat to the U.S.; that by no later than the Missile Crisis they wanted him removed from power; that the focal point for carrying out the assassination was a regime change specialist linked to the JMWAVE station in Miami who recruited propaganda, assault and assassination experts from his established network; and, that they honed regime change tactics that were part of their covert activities playbook of the day.

Does any of the evidence sustain such conclusions?

Bleau then lists Spartacus, Britannica and Wikipedia as sources for his essay but adds that "these reference materials may contain information that needs to be updated."

You think?

Spartacus is notorious for bad information, and everybody knows that Wikipedia is tainted by malicious editors. Bleau adds that "it is hoped that the research community can help perfect these." Yes, just what we need -- more conspiracy theorists to help update Spartacus and Wikipedia. And Britannica is just a generalist encyclopedia -- hardly a go-to source for JFK assassination research.

Bleau lists what the "perpetrators" had to do:

Have Oswald impersonated at least a dozen times to make him appear to be unhinged and pro-Castro;
Connect Oswald with intel-linked personalities such as Ruth Paine, David Ferrie, George de Mohrenschildt, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Guy Banister, Carlos Quiroga and many others;
Create a misinformation scheme in Mexico City where Oswald was being set up as a fall guy who supposedly exchanged with Russian and Cuban agents;
Get Oswald to start a Fair Play for Cuba Committee chapter in New Orleans at the peak of the Cold War;
Concoct incriminatory Black Letters from Cuba on multiple occasions to link patsies with Cuban agents;
Recruit Cuban Exiles and Mafia-linked assets;
Eliminate JFK in a military-style ambush;
Ensure weak security during the deadly motorcade;
Block Oswald from being on the security watch list;
Harness other Oswald-like useful idiots used in prior, similar incidents;
See that Jack Ruby was recruited to eliminate Oswald, the most important witness;
Control the narrative on day one of the assassination;
Manipulate the media and writers of history books;
Rig the President’s autopsy;
Stage corrupt inquiries;
Obstruct justice for decades.

That's quite a list, no?

Was it really necessary to have Oswald "impersonated a dozen times" to appear to be pro-Castro. Well, of course, because in the conspiracy world, Oswald was a man of the right, not the left. Not only did they have Oswald impersonated, they "harness[ed] other Oswald-like useful idiots used in prior, similar incidents." What is the difference between an Oswald-impersonator and an "Oswald-like useful idiot"?

And then the plotting team would have to "connect Oswald with intel-linked personalities such as Ruth Paine, David Ferrie, George de Mohrenschildt ..." You see, not only did Oswald have NO agency, just about everybody he knew was connected with intelligence. Bleau just slides in idiocies like Ruth Paine being CIA and casually slips in the factoid that Oswald knew Guy Banister and David Ferrie.

Did Oswald even go to Mexico City? Bleau refers to the "highly suspicious, alleged Oswald visit to Mexico City." And that was all part of a "misinformation scheme." And somehow the plotters got "Oswald to start a Fair Play for Cuba Committee."

Oswald was putty in their hands.

Why the need to do all of the above? Couldn't the plotters have just released the news to the public during the 1964 campaign that JFK was having an affair with Sam Giancana's girlfriend? That would have sunk the JFK candidacy and catapulted Goldwater into the presidency, whom I assume would have been preferable to the hawks than Lyndon Johnson.

How many people would be needed to plan and actually do the above steps? Bleau has constructed a conspiracy theory of hundreds -- and guess what, this is the logical outgrowth of rabid conspiracy thinking. And to Bleau, the conspiracy is still ongoing -- "obstruct justice for decades."

And the elephant in the room -- just one line, really:

Eliminate JFK in a military-style ambush.

One could almost envisage the plotters picking from a menu. What type of ambush do you want? Military-style? Mafia-style? And how on earth could a "military-style ambush" be blamed on a sole gunman? I guess that's where the cover-up comes in.

To Bleau, these tasks call for "regime-change specialists," and only those "who mastered "Executive Action." And thus there are only a few people capable of such an assignment, and who better than Paul Bleau to figure out just who those people are.

And Bleau points the finger at the one man capable of organizing the coup:

The analysis of org-charts is a good first step to identify a universe of regime change specialists who had the skill set and the contacts to assassinate JFK. The list of candidates who could have taken coordination roles consists of: William Harvey, head of Task Force W; Ted Shackley, Head of JMWAVE; Robert Moore, the Deputy Chief of Station; David Morales, Head of the Operations Branch at JMWAVE; George Joannides and Phil Toomey, who headed the Covert Action Department… David Atlee Phillips, who was part of Western Hemisphere 4, also figured prominently in this group. Out of this set of officers, there is only William Harvey who could have qualified to be the focal point; Harvey’s subordinates were simply too low in the hierarchy to be considered persons of trust for the policy makers above Harvey.

Bill Harvey.

And all this from looking at an organizational chart!

Bleau then examines the org chart of the CIA personnel in Mexico City. And he makes this ridiculous assertion:

This author believes that, as head of Cuban Affairs there, he [David Phillips] certainly was aware of DRE, FPCC and AMSANTA activities taking place during 1963 and that Oswald should have been an easily known quantity to him during his alleged visit at a minimum. A more realistic conclusion was that he was part of the puppeteering of Oswald throughout the summer of 63. This would link Phillips to George Joannides, who ran the DRE (at one time supervised by Phillips).

The puppeteering of Oswald? Again, Oswald has no agency, or should I say he has too much Agency. Bleau then links Phillips to Joannides, who did not run the DRE -- he was just the CIA contact for a while. This blog post shows that the DRE was not very good at following CIA direction.

Bleau then just casually throws out another assertion without evidence:

Also noteworthy on the org chart is Anne Goodpasture, who was judged to be lying during her HSCA testimony and part of a cover-up on the impersonation of Oswald

Who judged her to be lying? I guess Paul Bleau.

Bleau then instructs people to read some additional files:

Legal Attaché Clark Anderson, along with Ambassador Mann, was instrumental in pushing the Oswald Castro partnership in the assassination scenario. To know more, read the entire file available at Mary Ferrell.

The "Oswald Castro partnership in the assassination scenario." What does that mean?

And it's up to me to go the Mary Ferrell Foundation to find out more, gee, a link would have been helpful.

Bleau then presents a spreadsheet showing which operations CIA "regime change/assassination specialists" worked on. Bleau seems amazed that World War II veterans played a major role in the founding of the CIA -- particularly since it evolved from the OSS.

As with the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff JFK inherited, U.S. intelligence was highly like-minded, anti-communist and hawkish.

U.S. intelligence was like-minded? It seem like Bleau is upset that U.S. intelligence was just like JFK-- anti-communist and hawkish.

And was the CIA totally hawkish?

Arthur Schlesinger, in his book, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, was measured in his evaluation of the leadership of the CIA: (page 492)

None of this is to suggest that the CIA constituted, in the title of a popular exposé, an “invisible government” or that its influence was always, or often, reactionary and sinister. In my experience its leadership was politically enlightened and sophisticated. Not seldom CIA representatives took a more liberal line in White House meetings than their counterparts from State.

But nuance is not something to expect from Bleau.

What's really missing from all this talk of Executive Action are the Kennedys:

Bleau casually throws in that "Some believe that the plumbers were also involved in the JFK assassination." Some people? Who exactly, and why should we take this seriously?

Bleau sees things that no one else can see:

This represents a partial list of the coups, assassinations, and other covert activities that saw the handful of CIA officers discussed in the previous section reappear in some of the most violent periods of the Cold War. One can plainly see that the JFK assassination was not committed in a vacuum and that only a handful of regime specialists had the skills required to complete the mission. Their names keep coming back. It was argued that Oswald’s alleged attempt to murder General Walker proved that he had a propensity for violence. Need we say more?

"Need we say any more?" Well, yes.

Bleau claims that "only a handful of regime specialists had the skills required to complete the mission." The very people who utterly failed in their attempts to kill Fidel Castro had the skills to pull off and cover up a political coup in the United States?

And yes, Oswald's attempt to kill General Walker does say something about his propensity for violence.

Bleau then turns to his "key characters," Bill Harvey and John Roselli.

Harvey had been the head of Task Force W up until the aftermath of the Missile Crisis. He authored Executive Action plans code-named ZRRIFLE. He was tasked with planning the assassinations of Sukarno, Lumumba and Castro. Harvey played an integral role in the CIA- Mafia plots to kill Castro. He developed a friendship with mafioso John Roselli that lasted many years. His team was directly linked to the use of Black Letters to frame Castro for the murder of JFK in November 1963 and November 1962. His hatred for the Kennedys was well-known. In May 1963, when he was supposed to be exiled in Rome, he had meetings with Johnny Roselli in the Keys where he billed expenses under a QJWIN-ZRRIFLE heading. In July 1963, he asked for a six-month security clearance for Claire Booth Luce. According to one of his colleagues, he was present in a Dallas airport just a few weeks before the assassination. He attended many SGA meetings as the CIA expert on anti-Castro operations. He had direct relations with a number of the officers at JMWAVE, including David Morales.

Harvey failed in the attempts to kill Sukarno (he died of natural causes), Lumumba (it's unclear the CIA had anything to do with Lumumba's assassination) and Castro. The CIA-Mafia plots also failed. Harvey did have a friendship with Johnny Roselli, but so what? I see no evidence that Harvey "was directly linked to the use of Black Letters to frame Castro for the murder of JFK in November 1963 and November 1962."

November 1962? What's that all about?

I've written extensively about Bill Harvey and the continued obsession to paint him as a JFK conspirator.

Jefferson Morley's William Harvey Nothingburger, Continued

JFK Facts' research is hardly exhaustive.

Jefferson Morley's Latest William Harvey Nothingburger

There really is no mystery about Harvey's FAA Credentials.

Jefferson Morley is Wrong on William Harvey, Again!

Removing redactions in Harvey's Church Committee testimony do not shed light on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

A Reply to Jefferson Morley on Bill Harvey

A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?

Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?

There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963.

And Bleau even falls for the supposed death bed confession of E. Howard Hunt:

E.H. Hunt confessed to his son that it was Harvey who oversaw the murder, which was called the Big Event.

Hunt's widow and two of his children dispute the so-called confession:

Hunt's widow and her two children, 27-year-old Austin and 23-year-old Hollis, dismiss the brothers' story, saying it is the result of coaching an old man whose lucidity waxed and waned in his final months.

Kevan bitterly accuses her brothers of "elder abuse," saying they pressured their father for dramatic scenarios for their own financial gain. Hunt's longtime lawyer, Bill Snyder, says: "Howard was just speculating. He had no hard evidence."

Bleau's other main conspirator is David Atlee Phillips:

Phillips had nearly twenty touch points with Oswald during the six months leading up to the assassination. He confessed to his brother that he was in Dallas when JFK was assassinated.

Twenty touch points?

And what is the evidence that he confessed to his brother that he was in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

The allegation is on page 363 in James DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed.

Before he died on July 7, 1988, he called his estranged brother James Phillips. James knew how much his brother disliked Kennedy. And he always suspected he had played a role in his assassination. Phillips/Bishop knew he was dying. So the brothers understood this was probably the last time they would ever speak. At the end of the call, James asked David if he had been in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. The longtime Cold Warrior started to weep. He then said yes, he had been. This confirmed what James had long suspected. James then hung up.

DiEugenio's source is page 272 in Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much. His source was the singer-songwriter Shawn Phillips, who was David Phillips' nephew. His father supposedly told him about the phone call with David Phillips.

Yet another death-bed confession!

Tracy Parnell discussed this supposed incident on his excellent online book about the Veciana allegations.

The estrangement between David and James Phillips and the reasons behind it undoubtedly had an impact on the story James allegedly related to his son Shawn. The passage of time could also have impacted Shawn’s memory regarding the anecdote. James Phillips’ “knowledge” that David was “seriously involved” in the assassination was only an assumption on his part and likely originated from his own prejudices regarding the CIA. For instance, James told author Francis Nevins that the CIA was a “hidden and secret government” which “determines foreign policy.” Similarly, in 1975, the same year that saw heightened media disclosures regarding alleged CIA misdeeds, James told columnist Jack Curtin, “I am indeed the brother of David Atlee Phillips, lately CIA spymaster and apologist for that organization. I do not join him in that effort.”

As for his actual whereabouts on November 22, 1963, Phillips claimed, in his book The Night Watch, that he was in Mexico City, where he worked, when Kennedy was killed.

This document supports his story:

*Hat tip: Tracy Parnell. In this document, Phillips was "Choaden," and he was either at home in Mexico City or at the Mexico City station on November 22nd.*

Bleau then trots out another factoid:

He [David Phillips] admitted to Mark Lane that Oswald probably never even went to Mexico City.

Tracy Parnell discusses this supposed incident here:

Lane debated Phillips at the University of Southern California in 1977. Lane’s account of the event was first published in his book Plausible Denial and is the source for the information here unless otherwise indicated. Lane maintains that the “confession” by Phillips was in response to a question from the audience regarding Mexico City. Phillips allegedly said, “there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy." I say allegedly because I don’t believe Lane would be above changing a word or two in the transcript and I have no way to verify it.

“I sat there stunned” Lane wrote. “Phillips had confessed. His statement to the Warren Commission given in Mexico City was, he now admitted, false, as was his recent testimony before the congressional committee and as were his words in his newly published book.” For confirmation of his instantaneous conviction that Phillips had confessed, Lane looked to that bastion of truth Donald Freed—the same Donald Freed who would later write a fabricated tome that accused Phillips of murdering Orlando Letelier. Freed supposedly nodded his acknowledgement that he had also heard the “confession.”

To get to the bottom of this allegation by Lane, it is necessary to look at the larger picture. In his book, Lane makes much of the fact that he was somehow privy to Phillips’ testimony before the HSCA the previous year. I’ll give Lane the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was working from an account of Phillips’ testimony provided by an unknown individual and not a transcript. That might explain why some of what he says is simply false.

For example, Lane writes:

Phillips testified that tape recordings were made when Lee Harvey Oswald called the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He explained that the CIA could not give the recordings to the Warren Commission because “they had been destroyed before the assassination, as a routine matter.” An internal regulation required the destruction of tapes within one week after they had been created, he said. When asked to produce that regulation, he said it too had been destroyed.

But Phillips said no such thing. He told Richard Sprague that there was a set of “Station Regulations” that dictated proper procedure regarding things such as drinking and the possession of handguns. But regarding the amount of time a tape should be held before it was erased Phillips, “never saw such a regulation nor heard of it in Mexico City Station.” Indeed, Phillips described the amount of time a tape was held as a “local matter.” Nor did Phillips utter a word about the destruction of any regulation regarding tapes or anything else.

Now on to Phillips’ “confession.” Phillips, according to Lane, said, “… but I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all there was no proof of that. Second, there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy."

Rather than being any sort of “confession” or reversal of his HSCA testimony, this statement by Phillips represents a mid-seventies clarification of his views regarding Oswald and his Soviet sojourn. Obviously, Phillips had no personal knowledge of Oswald’s physical presence in the embassy and never said that he did. He did testify about what he thought was on the Soviet transcript, later admitting in his 1978 testimony that he had been cajoled by the techniques of Ron Kessler into “remembering” things that had not happened such as Oswald asking for free transport to Russia via Cuba.

But a 1975 interview with Dan Rather again shows Phillips making the distinction between the physical presence of Oswald in the Soviet embassy and the possibility that he had only phoned them:

Rather: You believe he was at the Soviet embassy?

Phillips: I’m not sure about that. I’m … I’m positive that he made contact with them.

This is exactly the point that Phillips was trying to make to Lane in the debate. He couldn’t say with certainty from his personal knowledge that Oswald had visited the embassy—only that he had contacted them. Perhaps Phillips emphasized this distinction because he had his own theory about Oswald’s visit to the embassy. Another possibility is that this was a way for Phillips to make it known that he was open to all interpretations of the evidence. In any case, it certainly was not any type of “confession” that reversed his 1976 testimony. And we now know from the totality of the evidence (most notably the 1993 book Passport to Assassination) that Oswald was physically at the Soviet embassy. Therefore, Phillips’ mid-seventies opinion is incorrect in this instance.

Bleau then provides another Phillips story:

He denied his participation in the conspiracy to investigator Kevin Walsh but admitted that there was one “likely involving intelligence agents”.

And, once again, Tracy Parnell has looked at that allegation:

Assuming Walsh’s recollection of the Phillips statement is accurate, there is an explanation that doesn’t require guilty knowledge on his part. Phillips, like most people, had his own personal opinions on the assassination and could have expressed those to Walsh. Indeed, in 1977, Phillips appeared on the David Susskind show. On that occasion he said in response to another guest, “Sir, I’m not trying to defend the [Warren] commission. I’m not saying even that there wasn’t a conspiracy involved, because I don’t know.” But there is no evidence that Phillips’ beliefs regarding a possible conspiracy were the result of any special knowledge he possessed.

And, of course, according to Bleau:

He [David Phillips] was also outed by E.H. Hunt.

I guess we are back to the death-bed confession.

And, of course, Bleau accepts the Veciana story without reservation:

Veciana claimed that Phillips met Oswald shortly before the assassination.

Once again, Tracy Parnell has totally debunked that story. Here is his conclusion:

Probably the most consequential conclusion in this book is one that was first provided by Fonzi himself in his HSCA writeup. He wrote, “No corroboration was found for Veciana's alleged meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald.” Absent such confirmation, the Veciana story goes nowhere.

Bleau continues in this manner examining the following suspects:

David Morales ("Hunt told his son that Morales was part of the team Harvey put together to eliminate JFK," and this important tidbit, "HSCA and CHURCH Committee investigator Gaeton Fonzi considered Morales a prime suspect.")
E. Howard Hunt ("He eventually told his son that William Harvey, David Morales, Cord Meyer and David Atlee Phillips were responsible for the assassination, sanctioned by LBJ, and that Corsicans were recruited as the hitmen.")
Ted Shackley ("He joined Phillips in Chile when Operation Condor was in full swing and ended his career of intrigue by joining the Iran-Contra gang, which included many of the Laos clan.") The Laos clan?
George Joannides ("During the HSCA investigation, he was strategically and illegally brought in as the liaison between the CIA and HSCA investigators.") Illegally?
Tony Sforza ("Both had been among the last CIA agents exfiltrated from the island. Records show that Sforza intended to contact Phillips by phone in Mexico City or at his home on November 23, 1963.") Bleau links to the CIA document above that shows that Phillips was in Mexico City on November 2, 1963.
Emilio Rodriguez ("Emilio Rodriguez was the oldest son of Arnesto Rodriguez and brother of Arnesto Junior, whom Oswald had visited in New Orleans in an attempt to learn how he might involve himself in training camps for sabotage against Castro." Actually, Oswald just visited Rodriguez to inquire about the possibility of taking a Spanish language course.
William Rip Robertson ("He was a frequent visitor to John Martino’s home. Martino confided to his close ones an involvement in the assassination.") Yet another confession!
Carl Jenkins ("Gene Wheaton tried unsuccessfully to get Jenkins and two of his proteges, Rafael Quintero and Nestor Izquierdo, to reveal what they knew about the assassination of JFK to the Assassination Records Review Board pending an immunity deal.") Really?
Rafael (Chi Chi) Quintero ("However, Quintero was once quoted as saying: “If I were ever granted immunity, and compelled to testify about past actions, about Dallas and the Bay of Pigs, it would be the biggest scandal ever to rock the United States.”) Really, and Bleau believes this.
Luis Posada ("He, along with Orlando Bosch, was responsible for the bombing of Cuban Flight 455, causing the death of 73 passengers, for which they were arrested.") Ok, but has this got to do with the JFK assassination?
Orlando Bosch ("Bosch, after the failed Bay of Pigs, produced literature that blamed JFK.")

But wait, there's more!

Bleau has other "Certain persons of interest who were not profiled in this section but deserve more scrutiny."

William Pawley ("a wealthy businessman who networked with many of the subjects discussed in this section."
Allen Dulles ("...whose behaviour during the lead-up to the assassination and on the fatal weekend it occurred was very suspicious.) Suspicious only to conspiracy theorists.
Edwin Wilson ("a shady CIA operative involved in murders, criminal activity and covert scandals galore.)
Ed Lansdale ("whose role on the SGA [Special Group Augmented], expertise in regime change operations and incriminating behavior about JFK’s Texas travels render him worthy of further investigation.") What "incriminating behavior?
Captain Westbrook of the Dallas Police Force ("who some claim was part of Operation Phoenix with Morales.") Who makes this claim?

But the ultimate boss was Bill Harvey, and he knew who to call:

The ultimate boss of this gang was the assassination Tzar himself: William Harvey. For anything that needed to be done that was beyond his capabilities, such as a rigged autopsy, the stifling of the Dallas Police Force, the weakening of security, the control of media and the ensuing cover-up, etc., he could count on his powerful bosses.

And Harvey got his task to kill JFK at the end of 1962:

It is before William Harvey was exiled to Rome at the end of 1962 that he was likely tasked with an Executive Action mission to eliminate Kennedy. The Pepe Letters have his fingerprints all over them. The likely go-ahead was passed on by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who sat on the SGA team that advised RFK. They must have been emboldened by attitudes expressed by powerful influencers, including LBJ, who was in all probability about to be dropped as VP by Kennedy. While they knew Harvey, they likely used a conduit to communicate with him. Either Lansdale or Dulles could have had the standing to reassure Harvey.

Harvey recruited David Morales, Johnny Roselli and David Atlee Phillips to help carry out the mission. After his exile to Rome, they were needed. Their likely functions were Phillips in the key role in propaganda, Roselli for Mafia-related tasks and Morales in planning the hit. The on-the-ground operatives could have come from the network of revolutionaries already trained in assassinations and regime change, soldiers of fortune linked to this network, such as Frank Sturgis and Roy Hargraves, mafiosi hitmen linked to the Roselli network or those connected to the QJWIN universe.

Is Bleau writing fiction?

And Lee Harvey Oswald was the perfect patsy:

Oswald became the perfect patsy to lay the blame on Castro. His puppeteering during the summer of 1963 likely began with Phillips and probably involved George Joannides. His starting an FPCC chapter in New Orleans, impersonation in Mexico City, and relations with the Cuban Exile community and right-wingers were all part of sheep-dipping tactics going on to make him look unhinged and pro-Castro.

Sheep-dipping tactics? Somebody has been spending too much time reading Fletcher Prouty.

Thank God for the Mafia:

It is through the Mafia contingent that Jack Ruby was brought in to eliminate Oswald, the most important witness who would have blown the lid off the whole enterprise.

Oswald knew everything?

But there was a hitch:

The one thing that did not go to plan was LBJ’s decision to push through a lone-nut narrative. This is why today we can be certain there was a conspiracy, and we can figure out much of the full portrait.

So, LBJ "pushed through a lone-nut narrative." His one mistake blew the operation and that is why we now know there was a conspiracy.

But wait, there's more -- but help is needed:

The spreadsheet and org-charts are possibly incomplete and may contain some errors; they are a work in progress… They need your input. Names will be added, removed or moved around. We need those for the FBI, Dallas Police Force, Military Intelligence, and the Secret Service… With this, we will be able to perform cluster analysis and create entity link diagrams and flowcharts for efficient data visualization.

I can't wait for the cluster analysis.

But just who coerced David Phillips?

It is important to note that some esteemed members of the research community believe that Phillips was coerced into contributing to propaganda on the day of the assassination itself. While this author disagrees with this point of view, he encourages a healthy debate around this subject.

A healthy debate?

I'm ready!

Update

Here is an excerpt from an October 1976 Washington Post article on Bill Harvey: