OPERATION ZIPPER:

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:42 pm

THE FOURTH ARTIST: A Rocky-Horror Picture-Show

Condon's first book was "The Oldest Confession." It was brought to theaters as a movie entitled "The Happy Thieves." It would seem important at this point to place the release date in January, 1962. The plot centers around art theft and art forgery in Madrid's Prado Museum.

"Manchurian Candidate" was released to the theaters on October 24, 1962. Kennedy had seen the U-2 reconnaissance photos on October 16, and the missile crisis was at its peak by October 27. No movie in history would have a more aptly-timed release date. Real events had been accumulating for years as the two great powers -- Russia and the US -- continued a confrontation that began with the Berlin airlift.

We know for certain that Frankenheimer and Axelrod were in New York during 1960, scheduling auditions and making plans. Phillips was also there; we just don't have concrete evidence that the movie production team and Phillips crossed paths. We only have Phillips' remark that he was planning to leave CIA; that he was going to New York to "begin a new career." What career would that be, for someone who had never given up his acting aspirations, who blended those aspirations with his CIA work, who had produced a Broadway play?

"Happy Thieves" was a comedy; it has been compared to "The Thomas Crowne Affair." The book's cover-leaf describes it as "screamingly funny, . . deeply serious . . . "

"Manchurian Candidate" the movie is no comedy. It is film-noir. Yet, (and this is my personal impression -- "a dime and a cup of coffee") -- reading the book will put you in stitches through some passages. I had a similar experience reading Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities."

"Carlos Contract" obliquely mentions a fourth artist. From our minimalist strategy that certain expressions are singular variously to MC, Hunt's memoir, and "Carlos" or that two words together will never appear on a single page from two books but "Manchurian" and "Carlos," we conclude that the use of these phrases or words is deliberate, with an uncanny parallel to characters in the Condon "Manchurian" book. They are deliberate; they have meaning; they compare Phillips to key characters in "Manchurian."

Similarly, the artists on "Carlos" page 4 all have one thing in common; when you find all the pictures entitled "Zapata," the number of pictures matches the number of times the artist names appear variously on the page. The array of the pictures -- following suggestions that two pictures are "on the same level" (they both have horses in them) and a third is a color lithograph (with the word "lithograph" appearing below the Rivera picture), indicate a chess-board pattern and the movement of the Knight. Finally, Phillips identifies himself as "Knight" in "Night Watch."

Therefore, all pictures and artists are important in "Carlos." They're not thrown in randomly to satisfy the gum-chewing, bus-riding spy-novel audience. They have deliberate meaning. There are three separate references to execution and assassination on that single page -- if you accept the premise that the helmet on the Gaulloises package represents Vercingetorix. If you don't, then there are two such references: a subtle yet clear comparison of "Knight" to Ben Marco in "Manchurian Candidate," and a Mexican hero who was brutally assassinated -- not by rifle fire from a lone nut -- but by dozens or hundreds of uniformed soldiers lining the walls around a courtyard.

The artists' names appear so many times on the page; the artists had one thing in common -- pictures of "Zapata;" and the number of paintings for each artist matches the frequency of the names on the page. So, by inference, there are five pictures of "Zapata" suggested on that page.

A major character in the book is made to describe David Sanchez Morales. Morales, according to David Corn, had much higher rank at the Florida JM/WAVE station than was previously thought: Chief of Operations. He was CIA's liaison to Johnny Roselli -- "Colonel" Roselli -- the liaison to the mob. Morales, as the story goes, had too much to drink in a New Mexico bar around 1975, boasted of having a hand in killing JFK, and was found dead a day or two later. The book character is named "Emilio Zapata Gonzalez."

These are no random accidents of a hack-novelist slapping together a cheap spy-novel for mass entertainment. They are a deliberate response to the non-random reference by Hunt to "Knight" as a character in "Manchurian Candidate."

Finally, we have both Hunt and Phillips making reference to the Kennedy assassination. Brief. Sparsely worded. But stark. And the page number in the "Carlos" reference matches the number Phillips quotes as a percentage of the public who believe there was a conspiracy.

The two CIA colleagues are simultaneously joking, but not joking. This isn't about Mexican legends or the Gallic Wars. It is about the Kennedy assassination, and they are joking about it.

Like two grade-school boys throwing spit-wads at the teacher, they are joking because either one or both of them are guilty. You do not joke about these sorts of things unless you are playing "chicken" with your CIA reviewers and the public, sneaking snickering comments back and forth.

What is going on with this background banter? The Watergate burglary, the Nixon tapes, the Church Committee, the litigation against Hunt connected with the Kennedy assassination in 1979, and Hunt's libel suit in 1983. The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979. The publication by newspapers and magazines about Phillips' role in the assassination, followed by his own lawsuit pursued by Vincent Bugliosi.

These were not times to make jokes, unless you could count on the superficial reading habits of a sleep-walking public and the protection of rubber stamps in red ink for "SECRET," "CONFIDENTIAL," and "CLASSIFIED." They were not times to make jokes unless you were guilty, passing notes in a classroom while assured protection with oaths of non-disclosure and files containing documents with those stamps on them.

We will show three more characters that match people associated with the anti-Castro projects.

Before that, we must note the only other artist's name that appears in the spy-novel. It appears only once, but it is insinuated by a reference to two mountains near Mexico City, often called "the sisters," one called "The Sleeping Lady." The artist's name appears on the second page -- page 95. The artist was known for two paintings, often referred to as "sisters:" "The Naked Maja" and "The Clothed Maja" in pictures of repose.

Carlos Contract page 94.jpg


Carlos Contract page 95.jpg


The scene containing the artist's name only resembles one picture by that artist, painted on a wall in his home -- a house known as "La Quinta del Sordo." It matches a group of people in a dimly-lit room who are either in mourning or frightened out of their wits. There is a man wearing a hat like a Stetson, as the character "Clem" is described in the book. But the picture that Phillips paints with words contains a coffin.

Quinta_del_Sordo_like_Phillips.jpg


Returning to the initial remark here, Condon's "Oldest Confession" is a comedy about art theft and art forgery. The painting to be stolen in the book's plot is one of two or more, variously titled by the same artist -- Goya -- as "The 2nd of May," "The 3rd of May," etc. These "May" paintings are not comic. They depict the terror and executions of Napoleon's occupation of Spain.

NEXT: LIGHTS, CAMERA AND THE ACTION CHAPTER
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Hunt for Red November

Postby Phil Dragoo » Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:18 pm

The hooded vigure on the viewer's left side of the human heap in Quinta del Sordo is Hunt.

Randy, you inquire as to Conein. Hunt mentions him to son Saint John. I have a print-out of the latter's ebook.

Yes, they (Hunt and Phillips) are having a grand and privileged tete-a-tete.

You express concern that we be able to prove something.

Here's a quick posit, one of many, many available to any of us:

The half-dozen or more Parkland medicos who cite "cerebellum or cerebellar tissue" exuding from the occipital wound big as a baseball.

Of course the Warrenite zombies would say it's the scoop of cerebellar tissue on the cerebellar cone Clint Hill was bringing Jackie which he spilled as the SS driver accelerated.


They'll have "just discovered" evidence it was something Clint Hill did every day at one as an excuse to be near the First Lady.


A large conspiracy not doable? Did not Agatha Christie depict Hercule Poirot uncovering the murder of one by many? Even dedicated readers would be left clueless in either a Christie mystery or a Dealey enigma--if the necessary clues are studiously retained in the dealer's hand.

Hunt may have left something, and to find it one must peel away the outer story of the son and his personal drama.


Phillips admitted to being in Dallas as did Hunt. Hunt had the last word; it has not been as thoroughly parsed as it deserves.
User avatar
Phil Dragoo
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:09 am

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:32 am

Phil Dragoo wrote:The hooded vigure on the viewer's left side of the human heap in Quinta del Sordo is Hunt.

Randy, you inquire as to Conein. Hunt mentions him to son Saint John. I have a print-out of the latter's ebook.

Yes, they (Hunt and Phillips) are having a grand and privileged tete-a-tete.

You express concern that we be able to prove something.

Here's a quick posit, one of many, many available to any of us:

The half-dozen or more Parkland medicos who cite "cerebellum or cerebellar tissue" exuding from the occipital wound big as a baseball.

Of course the Warrenite zombies would say it's the scoop of cerebellar tissue on the cerebellar cone Clint Hill was bringing Jackie which he spilled as the SS driver accelerated.


They'll have "just discovered" evidence it was something Clint Hill did every day at one as an excuse to be near the First Lady.


A large conspiracy not doable? Did not Agatha Christie depict Hercule Poirot uncovering the murder of one by many? Even dedicated readers would be left clueless in either a Christie mystery or a Dealey enigma--if the necessary clues are studiously retained in the dealer's hand.

Hunt may have left something, and to find it one must peel away the outer story of the son and his personal drama.


Phillips admitted to being in Dallas as did Hunt. Hunt had the last word; it has not been as thoroughly parsed as it deserves.

I suspend judgment or have none about who is in the picture. Phillips chooses to obliquely reference it without name -- but for that of the artist. It is the only picture I can find among all those by Goya which exactly matches the description -- sans coffin.

Somebody sent me an animated cartoon that uses Jack Nicholson's voice as a cartoon-dog fast-food slinger in an "in-and-out-burger" drive-thru. The punch-line:

"Who put the straw in strawberry?"
"Nature did . . . ."
"Who put the ap- in apricot?"
"Nature did . . . . "
"And who put the 'freak' in french-fries . . . . "
"Ah . . . there's no freak in french-fries . . . . "
"That's what I said! There's no freakin' french-fries!"

So who put the coffin in the Quinta del Sordo mural?

Phillips did!

It's only wise to see this stuff in its basic, elementary meanings. The pictures are important. It's may be no accident that Condon's first several pages of "Oldest Confession" quote from Goya:

"I had three masters: Velazquez, Rembrandt and Nature."

You can "guess" that maybe Phillips had that in mind. You can't prove it.

No -- the other artists are very important; Goya is important; and the importance is subtle for "the action chapter."

You can always involve a larger number of people in a "conspiracy" if (a) it is well-coordinated, (b) a large number of participants do not know that a crime will occur, (c) the largest number of participants don't know who's doing what, or if someone else will do something to actually execute the unanticipated crime. So the guys at the bottom, some few with fingers on the trigger and the threat of being silenced for breaking a silence -- knew what was happening. Maybe they only heard someone else's voice on a walkie-talkie, but did not know whose voice. The guys who planned it -- those around Phillips -- would know the most. The high-level people above them might only know what was going to happen and when -- not who or how. They may even have given thumbs-up or thumbs-down, as some interpret the meeting with the oil-men.

This endless conversation has been going on for 45 years. It will never stop. If you produce evidence, someone comes up with an elaborate argument to controvert it. If you say Phillips mentioned Angleton before his allegorical snake-story, then Angleton - not Phillips -- is at the bottom of it. Or you hire a lawyer, sue the newspapers, and encourage the lawyer to write his "last word" of 1,600 pages.

"Magic Bullet?" "Frangible, mercury-filled round from the knoll." "Entry from front?" "No, entry wounds from the rear." "Oswald and the Carcano?" "No prints on the metal surfaces and casings -- only on the book boxes." "He used gloves." "Let's do a trajectory analysis using computers." "What? You can make that come out any way you want, but a conspiracy doesn't mean no bullets came from the 6th floor TSBD."

That's why these telltale links between these books by CIA men are of special value to me. Sooner or later, somebody else will try and fabricate some other "interpretation." For me, it's not about interpretation. There are only a few ways in which it interprets. I believe Helms had it figured out before he died. I've heard enough from the tape of Hunt's death-bed remarks that further confirms it.

As far as Helms is concerned, Phillips is on the s***-list for any mention, but he gives plenty of space to Hunt, footnotes for Bissell and Meyer -- a lot of information. Some of it is erroneous and misleading. But some of what is erroneous or misleading is unintentional. It's one person's perspective; one person who saw so many documents, but not others; who was aware of specifics for certain clandestine operations but not others; one person who is working on a memoir 30 and 40 years after the fact of that decade and the one preceding it.

I can satisfy myself that I now know -- "Know" with a capital K. I might satisfy others. And there will be someone out there, paid or encouraged by whomever or whatever to write a book, twist the facts and attempt to further reduce a consensus about what happened. Am I a "conspiracy nut?" Say whatever you want. I'm freaking retired!
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:51 am

Wow. I'm going to need some time to digest all of this. This reminds me of a time in college when I was doing a report on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Talk about deep and mysterious. While I was reading Poe and trying to decipher his words, I listened to music by the Alan Parsons Project from an album called Tales of Mystery and Imagination. It seemed to help my focus or at least make me think out of the box. I think I'm going to do the same thing here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSQz_LQ6Kak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWB_MAu ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHNxBheF ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBC7Rown ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZyNKrYo ... re=related
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:33 pm

As I read through all of the great perspective Randy has given us, there is no doubt that Phillips uses a skill that he learned in the CIA called cryptography, which is the practice and study of hiding information. Phillips does that well in his books, as does Hunt. As Randy shows, Phillips basically confesses in his books, but does not state it matter of fact. He uses code words and numbers, a standard practice of cryptography.

David Phillips had many talents. Win Scott once said of Phillips, "His (Phillips) comprehensive understanding of human beings combined with a thorough knowledge of covert action techniques and his fluent Spanish make him unusually valuable... He is the most outstanding Covert Action officer that this rating officer has ever worked with."

Phillips was also "theatrically handsome".

Randy has also given us a glimpse of the narcissistic personality of Phiilps. That is...being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.

He used his years of training to manipulate Lee Harvey Oswald and others to do his bidding. The JFK assassination was a classic black ops mission. One that fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action, and/or a false flag operation is used to give the appearance that another actor was responsible, or – most often – black operations involve extensive arrangements so as to be able to hide the fact that the black operation ever occurred.

That is precisely the way the Warren Commission defined the murder of JFK. They covered up the true facts. And people like Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, Gary Mack and Chris Matthews do the same to this day. All four of those individuals felt that selling their souls and credibility was worth it in their minds.

Speaking of Bugliosi, the fact that he is historically tied to Phillips and was his attorney, speaks volumes about why his 1,600 page door stop was written. Like Phillips, Bugliosi has many faces, and when one explores all factors, the face one sees is quite ugly.

Once again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4UgPBS4RA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gspLZ825 ... re=related
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby ChristophMessner » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:33 pm

Randy, Bop,
thanks a thousand times for your effort to expand our knowledge and widen our horizon. You are a real eye-opener and helped me out of these dead-end-thinking-streets of the jfk-assassination-research as usual on other fori!
Chris
unjust peace is better than unjust war; just war is better than unjust peace; just peace is better than just war
User avatar
ChristophMessner
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:11 am
Location: Germany

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Bob » Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:08 pm

ChristophMessner wrote:Randy, Bop,
thanks a thousand times for your effort to expand our knowledge and widen our horizon. You are a real eye-opener and helped me out of these dead-end-thinking-streets of the jfk-assassination-research as usual on other fori!
Chris


Randy is the conductor of this symphony. I'm just a musician, just like you Chris, and the others. :wink:
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby ChristophMessner » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:52 pm

:wink:

You know which big questions are left after all this in my mind?

Was it necessary to be that evil in the secret services of the US back then to beat the even-more-evilness in the secret services of the eastern superpowers Russia and China?

Can the "axis of the evil" only be beaten by the "axis of the even more evil/tricky/treacherous/corrupt/..."?

Was it naive of JFK to assume that he could cross this nature law of power play?
unjust peace is better than unjust war; just war is better than unjust peace; just peace is better than just war
User avatar
ChristophMessner
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:11 am
Location: Germany

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby tom jeffers » Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:32 am

Bob wrote:As I read through all of the great perspective Randy has given us, there is no doubt that Phillips uses a skill that he learned in the CIA called cryptography, which is the practice and study of hiding information. Phillips does that well in his books, as does Hunt. As Randy shows, Phillips basically confesses in his books, but does not state it matter of fact. He uses code words and numbers, a standard practice of cryptography.

David Phillips had many talents. Win Scott once said of Phillips, "His (Phillips) comprehensive understanding of human beings combined with a thorough knowledge of covert action techniques and his fluent Spanish make him unusually valuable... He is the most outstanding Covert Action officer that this rating officer has ever worked with."

Phillips was also "theatrically handsome".

Randy has also given us a glimpse of the narcissistic personality of Phiilps. That is...being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.

He used his years of training to manipulate Lee Harvey Oswald and others to do his bidding. The JFK assassination was a classic black ops mission. One that fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action, and/or a false flag operation is used to give the appearance that another actor was responsible, or – most often – black operations involve extensive arrangements so as to be able to hide the fact that the black operation ever occurred.

That is precisely the way the Warren Commission defined the murder of JFK. They covered up the true facts. And people like Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, Gary Mack and Chris Matthews do the same to this day. All four of those individuals felt that selling their souls and credibility was worth it in their minds.

Speaking of Bugliosi, the fact that he is historically tied to Phillips and was his attorney, speaks volumes about why his 1,600 page door stop was written. Like Phillips, Bugliosi has many faces, and when one explores all factors, the face one sees is quite ugly.

Once again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4UgPBS4RA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gspLZ825 ... re=related


we could say..... theatrically ugly?
tom jeffers
 

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby ThomZajac » Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:30 am

My take on Vincent Bugliosi is a simple one; he is a contrary-an. (forgive the spelling).

Most Americans did not believe RFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy- and so he argued that there was.

Most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK- and so he argues for a lone gunman.

My guess is that if you look at virtually any public stance he has ever taken, you will find that he is in opposition with the majority view.

Plus, if you listen to him on the radio, he is a whinny as they come. Major ego problem here. A sad story really.
ThomZajac
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:13 pm
Location: Bonny Doon, CA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Bob » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:43 pm

ThomZajac wrote:My take on Vincent Bugliosi is a simple one; he is a contrary-an. (forgive the spelling).

Most Americans did not believe RFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy- and so he argued that there was.

Most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK- and so he argues for a lone gunman.

My guess is that if you look at virtually any public stance he has ever taken, you will find that he is in opposition with the majority view.

Plus, if you listen to him on the radio, he is a whinny as they come. Major ego problem here. A sad story really.


No doubt Thomas. :wink:

However, we now see the common link between Gerald Posner, Gary Mack and Vince Bugliosi. Not only are they out for the all mighty buck, they are closely associated with members of the CIA, and Bugliosi couldn't get too much higher up than David Phillips.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:52 pm

LIGHTS . . . . CAMERA . . . . ACTION CHAPTER!
Prairie oysters are split testicles of calves fried in hot fat and salted well. [Richard Condon, "And Then We Moved to Rossenarra," 1973.]

"Huevos de Oro," Schwarz shouted, holding a portion of meat aloft on a fork. "Who will have the golden eggs?" An enthusiastic guest accepted the bull's testicles. ["The Carlos Contract," page 153]


Computer science includes a topic known as "artificial intelligence." As a discipline, AI incorporates game theory, notions of "fuzzy logic," and some concepts with established application to business decision-making and statistics.

For instance, in the example of solving a puzzle or playing a game, the discipline applies a model of an inverted tree with branches connected by nodes, each node representing a "state" of understanding. With a chess game, each node represents the status of the chess-pieces and their positions on the board. Subsequent branches represent possible moves to new nodes in the entire "state-space." This is not unlike Rappaport's application of "decision-analysis" in business decision-making. Each branch to a new possibility has a probability or likelihood attached to it.

The model can be applied to a discovery of evidence in solving a crime. Choose a starting node at the top of the tree; form an initial hypothesis about the likelihood you will find more information fitting the hypothesis at the next level. Make additional hypotheses about the third level of nodes, and proceed in looking for more evidence that either confirms or diminishes the initial hypothesis.

Most people read books from cover to cover, beginning to end. If you were looking for information within one or more books that supports an initial hypothesis, your path of discovery could proceed in that linear fashion, but it doesn't have to. You can start anywhere, make a hypothesis, and proceed through the search-space of the printed material.

The reason I can say that "I know" Phillips was at the center of the JFK murder, or that "I know" there was a conspiracy, includes a caveat that you can never "know" anything absolutely. You live in a world of probabilities, random distributions, bell-curves, Poisson distributions. Almost anyone will tell you that there is absolutely a 100% chance that dropping a billiard ball from three feet above a cement surface will result with the ball falling -- not floating away -- at a certain known rate of acceleration (gravity), and that based on the resilience of the ball, it will bounce a certain height that is predictable 100% of the time.

But a simple phenomenon like that still occurs in a probabilistic world. In fact, we just described it in probabilistic terms! If some species is known to birth litters of offspring with an average of four varying between one and eight, the greatest likelihood may represent the average, but there is always a chance that there will be two or three . . . six or seven in the litter. That sort of example offers more variability -- more uncertainty.

We can apply probabilistic notions to test whether something is a dead certainty or a random event. Hunt's reference to "Manchurian Candidate" and Knight/Phillips is not a random event: you will never find the expression "theatrically handsome man" in books other than "Manchurian Candidate." Since we're interested in books published before Phillips' last, we would sample books before 1989 to prove that point. Or, we could even sample books before 1980, since the "essential Phillips" books were published before that year.

The same holds true with the occurrence of "Mafia" and "Orozco" on that single page of Phillips' spy-novel. You will only find those words on a single page of "Manchurian Candidate." If, hoping to disprove my assertion, you random-sample other books in a library to find such a page containing those words -- I will win any bets.

Condon mentions in his autobiography that "Manchurian Candidate" was written in New York, and he proceeded with the ending of the book in mind to work backwards in developing the plot. But I didn't read some passage in Phillips' books and work backward to my initial hypothesis. I first discovered the passages in "Night Watch" and moved forward, making additional hypotheses about what I might then find.

"Night Watch" was sitting on the coffee table in early 2001; "Manchurian Candidate" (the movie) was playing on the TV; I knew Phillips specialized in psy-war and propaganda from his own accounts in the book; and I asked a question: "Will I find anything in 'Night Watch' that suggests a connection between CIA and 'Manchurian Candidate.'?"

When I thought that I did find something (the passage about the McCarthy Hearings, the propaganda-shop in Building K and the "Condom" joke), I began to formulate the fundamental hypothesis:

IF Phillips has a certain personality AND IF he is guilty AND IF he publishes books vetted by CIA . . . . THEN . . . I will find more references to Condon and indications of guilt in the books (like jokes about the assassination.)

Above the hypothesis and its revisions, a theory emerges:

THEORY: Phillips had associations -- direct or indirect -- with Condon going back to 1954. Phillips was aware of a project to transform the book into the [Frankenheimer] movie as early as 1959. Phillips may already have had an idea of a propaganda application that depended on the timing of the movie, the establishment of its myth about brainwashing and a "monster plot." He did, after all, know about Angleton's "briefings," and probably attended one or more of them -- and there were probably jokes circulating among CIA colleagues about Angleton's views.

So he may have conceived of an assassination plot to kill a president and use the fictional plot as a cover-story even before the Bay of Pigs. Motive surfaces from the Bay of Pigs, and new motives would arise as other possible conspirators became discontent. The Missile Crisis, with the timing of the movie, the post-crisis implications for the Cuba projects and other factors would increase the likelihood of an assassination plot, and there was plenty of time to prepare Oswald as the patsy.

The preparation of Oswald seems to apply the Pygmalion myth to fit a mirror image of the hypno-assassin in Condon's book.

Boiled down to its essentials, Phillips had an idea from a book; the book leads to a movie; the timing of the movie release and its plot suggests a script for an organized act of terrorism; the organized act of terrorism has elements that forge the signature of a communist or an agent of either KGB or Castro on the perpetrator.


That was my theory. It was the essence of my theory -- accepting the declassified page from Oswald's 201 file that assigned Oswald to Phillips in 1961 as a basis to suspect Phillips, buttressed by Fonzi's HSCA investigation recounted in his 1994 book, "The Last Investigation." And it was the essence of my theory at the time I had only discovered the pages in "Night Watch" -- and before making the connection between Hunt's "Give Us This Day" and Phillips' "Carlos" spy-novel.

The day "Carlos Contract" arrived in the mail, I did not know what I would find in "Carlos," but it took less than a day to discover the features on page 4. In addition to the words "Mafia" and "Orozco," I found the commonality between the artists' names and the pictures with the same "Zapata" title. In another half-hour's reading, I found "Emilio Zapata Gonzalez" on page 36, recognizing the detailed correspondence to the real-life David Sanchez Morales.

As of page 36, I did not know for sure what else I would discover in "Carlos Contract." But I had researched Condon; I was familiar with the history of the 1958 "Oldest Confession" novel and the 1962 release of the "Happy Thieves" film. So, thinking about the artist names on page 4, realizing that artists and pictures were important in the book, I made another hypothesis about the search-space.

HYPOTHESIS: As of page 36, if any other artist's name appears in "Carlos Contract," it would be Francisco de Goya.

And we have essentially proven that hypothesis. You don't need to accept my account of when I made that hypothesis. That's the difference between my "knowing," and your believing that I made the hypothesis before I found the word "Goya-esqe" and the scene in "Carlos" that seems very close to a mural on a wall of La Quinta de Sordo -- Goya's home.

In Condon's "The Oldest Confession," a bullfight in Madrid provides basis for a diversion so that an art thief could replace the real Goya painting inside the Prado Museum with a forgery of his own hand.

In Phillips' "Carlos Contract," a team of ex-CIA operatives -- including "Emilio," and two men named "Frank" and "Hyphenated Jake," work with the novel's protagonist "McLendon" [Phillips] to break into a terrorist operation chief's home in Mexico City, enter his library, and steal a manuscript of a "terrorist plan." They must replace the manuscript undetected. To do that, they must make an elaborate forgery.

A diversion is arranged as the home's owner conducts a poolside barbecue on his lawn. The team communicates with little ear-phones and microphones. The scene is purposefully directed in real time.

"Clem" is mixing in the garden-party, ready to create a diversion. "Frank" enters the office . . . :


page 148 " . . a painting." . . . Just like the movies . . . "
Carlos Contract page 148.jpg


There is only one book on a bookshelf. The book jacket shows some handwritten numbers. There is a picture on the wall. The picture -- "just like the movies" -- is a "moving picture," and easily serves as a symbol or image of a "motion picture." Behind the picture is a wall-safe. The combination opens the wall-safe to reveal a sealed manilla envelope among some other papers. The taped envelope contains a manuscript, and the owner's signature is written all over the tape.

Carlos Contract page 149.jpg


So after photographing the pages in the envelope, this retired-CIA team of burglars must forge the same signature after replacing the manuscript in a new, similar envelope taped to resemble the original. It is, in every sense of the word, a forgery.

Carlos Contract page 150.jpg


[CONTINUED -- next post]
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:22 pm

Before continuing, I've attached the Goya "May 1808" paintings. It is the first of these -- designated for forgery and replacement -- in the art-theft plot of Condon's "The Oldest Confession:"

Goya 2nd of May 1808.jpg


Goya 3rd of May 1808.jpg
Goya 3rd of May 1808.jpg (38.28 KiB) Viewed 10632 times


[CONTINUED: Next post]
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:29 pm

The team of CIA veterans must re-enter the house and put the forged envelope back in the wall-safe:

[Carlos Contract, page 151]

Carlos Contract page 151.jpg


They need a diversion:

[Carlos Contract, page 152]

Carlos Contract page 152.jpg


[Carlos Contract, page 153]

Carlos Contract page 153.jpg


[CONTINUED -- next post]
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

Re: OPERATION ZIPPER:

Postby Randy Bednorz » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:33 pm

"Clem" challenges his host -- the terrorist operations-chief, Schwarz. The contest involves shooting at each others' hats as they are tossed into the air. Clem uses Schwarz's gun to shoot a sombrero, waiting for the sombrero to come to rest on the ground before he fires six shots into it:

[Carlos Contract, page 154]

Carlos Contract page 154.jpg


Soon, Emilio Zapata Gonzalez fires three shots into an electrical switch-box, killing the lights and enabling the team to escape after replacing the envelope in the wall-safe:

[Carlos Contract, page 155]

Carlos Contract page 155.jpg


Judge for yourself. With all the coincidences in this book which coincide together in the most coherent way, this is either an allegorical portrayal of the JFK assassination from Phillips' perspective of Propaganda and Psy-War Master, or it's just the action-chapter of a $5 spy-novel with a title that fits on the shelf with those of brother James.

But none of these things arise by accident in a published book by an author who immersed himself in a college liberal-arts program, to spend his first 13 years in CIA as a propaganda specialist reviewing book-manuscripts while serving under-cover in foreign countries.

You must also answer another question. Why did Phillips re-publish this action-chapter as chapter 20 in "My Secret Wars Diary" so that it just precedes chapter 21 -- "If You Have My Book . . .?"

The simple and obvious answer: It's his own favorite chapter in "Carlos Contract."

How does a comic chapter in an adolescent spy-novel leave the author with such a sense of accomplishment ten years later, diagnosed with terminal lung-cancer?

Who put the "zap" in "Zapruder?"

Phillips did.
[NEXT: THE PYGMALION MYTH REVEALED]
[THEN: NOTES AND CORRECTIONS ON THE CIA AFTERMATH]
[FOLLOWED BY: JUST LIKE A MOVIE: DRESSED TO KILL]
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees -- [Emiliano Zapata]
Randy Bednorz
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Riverside, California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron