CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs

[doctorw]

CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would
“Confuse the Public.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29079

[robert dobbson]

I have to agree with them - I think "The Public " would be confused to
learn that "Gerry Droller" was actually George De Mohrenschildt - but
I think these documents ought to be released anyway.

[claviger]

On Feb 7, 7:09 am, robert dobbson <internetfantasypop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 6, 8:55 pm, doctorw <PSA...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would
> > “Confuse the Public.”
>
> >http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29079
>
> I have to agree with them - I think "The Public " would be confused to
> learn that "Gerry Droller" was actually George De Mohrenschildt - but

Do you have documentation to support this allegation, or did you leap to
this conclusion because both names begin with G D?

[Anthony Marsh]

Unless he has some bizarre theory that several CIA agents used the same
alias for operations it makes no sense. Droller's history goes back to
the OSS in WWII German. He was a CIA desk officer who used operational
cover names. George De Mohrenschildt was just a CIA informant, an asset,
not an officer.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/7/2012 8:09 AM, robert dobbson wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:55 pm, doctorw<PSA...@aol.com> wrote:
>> CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would

>> ?Confuse the Public.?

>>
>> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29079
>
> I have to agree with them - I think "The Public " would be confused to
> learn that "Gerry Droller" was actually George De Mohrenschildt - but
> I think these documents ought to be released anyway.
>

That is not true. Droller was a German who became a CIA officer. De
Mohrenschildt was only an asset, an informant.

I know what the CIA is worried about. They blame the failure on JFK and
say that he did not authorize the second air strike. Sy Hersh has repeated
that lie for them. But the documents show tbat he did authorize it and
even authorized US Navy jets to protect the bombers, but they arrived at
the wrong time and never saw the bombers. Someone named Ned in the CIA
didn't understand the difference in time zones. THAT is what they are
covering up. THEIR mistakes.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4f31...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You?ve been wrong forever about this even though you have the answer on
your website, http://the-puzzle-palace.com/co2-19.JPG . Not the first
time you haven?t been able to comprehend your own references and I don?t
suppose it will be the last.

Two airstrikes were planned to take out the Cuban air force. This was
vital to the operation so that the Cuban air force wouldn?t wipe out the
invading force. They flew the first day?s mission without decisive
results. The second day?s mission was canceled at the highest level.
This mission of striking the Cuban air fields was never reinstated.
Never.

What you refer to was a mission to drop badly needed supplies to those
poor souls on the ground. And now I?m sure you?ll tell me bad weather
prevented the second mission to strike the Cuban air fields. That will
also be so many horse apples.

Do you understand the difference in striking enemy air fields and flying a
resupply mission?

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

They have reason to fear the release. It reveals he pervasive and
systemic incompetence of the CIA. Can't even understand time zones.

[Anthony Marsh]

There were several airstrikes planned and several made.

Some were not made and some were delayed. You need to at least admit that
the first airstrike was not 100% effective and left several Castro planes
operational. For that reason a second airstrike was require to remove
Castro's remaining planes. By now you should know that it was authorized
by Kennedy and was sent using the Alabama National Guard pilots. They were
shot down because the US Navy jets were not there to protect them from
Castro's planes. That was the second airstrike. The one that Kennedy
authorized. The problem was that someone in the CIA sent the US Navy jets
at the wrong time 6:30 AM Cuba time. The B-26s left Nicaragua shortly
after 3:30 AM and would arrive 3 hours later. 6:30 Nicaragua time. But
that is 7:30 Cuba time. The B-26s were easily shot down by Castro's T-33's
which the CIA did not even know were armed. Even Bissell said in his oral
history that he was never able to get to the bottom of the confusion over
the time zones.


Here is the cable the CIA sent authorizing the 6 US Navy jets to fly
passive air cover. NB the time the cable was sent and the authorized hour
of air cover.

140. Telegram From the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commander in Chief,
Atlantic (Dennison)

Washington, April 19, 1961, 3:37 a.m.

//Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series,
Cuba, Subjects, Taylor Report. Top Secret; Exclusive; Flash. Also sent to
CTG 81.8. A chronology maintained in the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations indicates that the instructions in this telegram resulted from
a conference at the White House. (Naval Historical Center, Area Files,
Bumpy Road Materials) The conference cited in the chronology was the one
listed in the President's appointment book as having begun at 11:58 p.m.
on April 18 and concluded at 2:46 a.m. on April 19. No participants are
listed for this off-the-record meeting on Cuba, and no other record of the
meeting has been found. (Kennedy Library, President's Appointment Book)

JCS 994369. Bumpy Road. Exclusive to Adm Dennison and RAdm Clark from JCS.

1. TG 81.8 to furnish air cover of 6 unmarked aircraft over CEF forces
during period 0630 to 0730 local time 19 April to defend CEF against air
attack from Castro forces. Do not seek air combat but defend CEF forces
from air attack. Do not attack ground targets. Pilots carry as little
identification as practicable. If necessary to ditch, ditch at sea.

2. CEF transport aircraft, to include C-46, C-54 and possibly C-130 types,
are scheduled to air drop supplies to CEF forces in beachhead from 190630R
to 190730R./1/ Friendly B-26's are scheduled to attack Castro tanks and
forces in vicinity of beachhead during same period.

/1/6:30 to 7:30 local time.

3. U.S. Col. Robertson will land on beach by small boat during same
period for consultation with CEF commander.

4. CEF very short of supplies and are being requested by other agencies to
break out from beach as soon as practicable either as organized force or
as small bands of guerillas. If this is not possible it may become
necessary to evacuate CEF forces at last resort. Should this be necessary
will probably use CEF ships but have Phibron 2 in position about 30 miles
from beach by 191300R/2/ prepared to conduct evacuation from Blue Beach or
other designated beach at 191700R/3/ using unmarked amphibious craft with
crews in dungarees so that they will not be easily identified on beach. If
evacuation by U.S. ships ordered furnish air cover to protect landing
craft and keep amphibious shipping not less than five miles from beach so
as not to indicate U.S. ships are involved. What is latest time you will
need executing order to evacuate at 191700R?

/2/1 p.m. local time.

/3/5 p.m.

5. Make frequent reports after operation begins.

6. New subject. Furnish air cover to CEF ships more than 15 miles from
coast as practicable./4/

/4/At 6:30 a.m., Clark cabled to Dennison: "Will devote my entire
resources to execution JCS 190837Z [JCS 994369]." (CTG 81.8 telegram
191130Z to CINCLANTFLT; Naval Historical Center, Area Files, Bumpy Road
Materials)

http://www.justmaps.org/maps/images/thematics/timezones-map.gif

[Bill Clarke]

"Do not attack ground targets". So this isn't the second planned attack
on the air fields. They were canceled and never rescheduled.

>2. CEF transport aircraft, to include C-46, C-54 and possibly C-130 types,
>are scheduled to air drop supplies to CEF forces in beachhead from 190630R
>to 190730R./1/ Friendly B-26's are scheduled to attack Castro tanks and
>forces in vicinity of beachhead during same period.

"to attack Castro tanks and forces in vicinity of beachhead". No air
fields mentioned. That is because they had been canceled and never
rescheduled.

Bill Clarke

[robert dobbson]

That would be a neat trick, if I did. There is no "documentation"
about Gerry Droller, nothing whatsoever, because both the name and the
biography attributed to it are fictions. With due respect to Mr
Marsh, in prior threads I've demonstrated that the alleged Droller
background he refers to is totally false, that everything attributed
to Droller - including supposed positions within the CIA before and
after the Bay of Pigs operation - is actually attributable to other,
historic persons about whom there really is documentation. If anyone
possesses documentation for the Droller background that Mr Marsh
refers to, please do present it and prove me wrong.

There are NO photographs of Gerry Droller. There are photos of
everyone else connected to the Bay of Pigs operation, including every
other member of the CIA 'team' Droller was working with. There has to
be a reason for that.

George De Mohrenschildt & his wife conveniently went on "a walking
trip", supposedly from Mexico to Guatamala, from 1960 to 1962
coincidentally enough. They supposedly walked 4000 miles. That's an
unusual way for anyone to "go on a trip" - on foot, following ancient
Mayan trails through the jungles and wilderness, generating no records
of where they might have been at any particular point during that
time. And then, in 1962, they just happen to pop out of a cuban exile
training camp in Guatamala. Totally by coincidence of course, of
course.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/8/2012 8:16 AM, robert dobbson wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:11 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 7:09 am, robert dobbson<internetfantasypop...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 8:55 pm, doctorw<PSA...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would
>>>> “Confuse the Public.”
>>
>>>> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29079
>>
>>> I have to agree with them - I think "The Public " would be confused to
>>> learn that "Gerry Droller" was actually George De Mohrenschildt - but
>>
>> Do you have documentation to support this allegation, or did you leap to
>> this conclusion because both names begin with G D?
>
> That would be a neat trick, if I did. There is no "documentation"
> about Gerry Droller, nothing whatsoever, because both the name and the
> biography attributed to it are fictions. With due respect to Mr
> Marsh, in prior threads I've demonstrated that the alleged Droller
> background he refers to is totally false, that everything attributed
> to Droller - including supposed positions within the CIA before and
> after the Bay of Pigs operation - is actually attributable to other,
> historic persons about whom there really is documentation. If anyone
> possesses documentation for the Droller background that Mr Marsh
> refers to, please do present it and prove me wrong.
>

No, you haven't. In addition to the documents and books there are some
oral histories which mention him.

> There are NO photographs of Gerry Droller. There are photos of
> everyone else connected to the Bay of Pigs operation, including every
> other member of the CIA 'team' Droller was working with. There has to
> be a reason for that.
>

There is no photograph of Maurice Bishop.

> George De Mohrenschildt& his wife conveniently went on "a walking

> trip", supposedly from Mexico to Guatamala, from 1960 to 1962
> coincidentally enough. They supposedly walked 4000 miles. That's an
> unusual way for anyone to "go on a trip" - on foot, following ancient
> Mayan trails through the jungles and wilderness, generating no records
> of where they might have been at any particular point during that
> time. And then, in 1962, they just happen to pop out of a cuban exile
> training camp in Guatamala. Totally by coincidence of course, of
> course.
>

Do you have any proof of a connection with the Bay of Pigs invasion?

[claviger]

On Feb 8, 7:16 am, robert dobbson <internetfantasypop...@gmail.com>

IIRC there was an obituary for a Gerald Droller. Is this part of the
legend too?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/7/2012 4:50 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:

There was never a mission planned for the second day to strike the
airbases. The first strike was two days before the day of the invasion.
The second strike was scheduled for D-Day. Kennedy cancelled that one. But
then reinstated it for late Monday/early Tuesday morning. You have not
bothered to read the official CIA history. Even that history makes the
same mistake you do about confusing the air cover with the airstrike on
Castro's airfields.

But in discussing what strikes did go forward the official history
accidentally mentions that the second airstrike WAS launched late Monday
night.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=1608575&imageOnly=true


"It was not until near
midnight Monday and before dawn on Tuesday morning
(18 April) that the abortive reattacks were launched."

So the CIA admits in its own official history that JFK authorized a second
airstrike against Castro's airfields, but the B-26s were not able to find
their targets. So it's a LIE for the CIA apologists to claim that there
was no second airstrike. Kennedy was not the pilot so don't blame him for
the failure of that mission. So, once again, who the Hell are YOU to call
the CIA liars? They say in print that the second airstrike was launched.

> What you refer to was a mission to drop badly needed supplies to those
> poor souls on the ground. And now I?m sure you?ll tell me bad weather
> prevented the second mission to strike the Cuban air fields. That will
> also be so many horse apples.
>

One of several missions which did go ahead. Also attacking Castro's tanks.

> Do you understand the difference in striking enemy air fields and flying a
> resupply mission?
>

Do you understand that the failed mission that I discussed was also to
protect the invasion forces on the beach and at sea?

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4f34...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Lawrence Freedman, ?Kennedy?s Wars? page 140-141. ?It was agreed that
there would be two air strikes against the Cuban air bases. The first
(strike) took place using eight B-26s launched from Nicaragua on
Friday, 14 April. They ?struck to only marginal effect?.

?At 9:30 P.M. on 16 April Bundy phoned Cabell to inform him that there
should be no more air strikes unless actually launched from the
beachhead. Any further discussion should be with Rusk.? Rusk had
already decided against a second strike. ?Bissell and Cabell
immediately went to Rusk?. ?Rusk rang the president and explained the
CIA?s objections while sustaining his own recommendation. Kennedy
accepted Rusk?s advice.? So there it is Marsh. The second planned
air strike of 32 sorties was canceled, no ands ifs or butts or your
sidestep. The second air strike was canceled on the highest
authority, JFK.

Page 144;

Burke; ?Can I not send in an air strike? JFK; No?
Burke; ?Can we send in a few planes? JFK; No, because they could be
identified as United States.?
Burke; ?Can we paint out their numbers or any of this? JFK; No.?
And this goes on and on with Kennedy always saying NO. NO to the
second planned air strike.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/9/2012 11:50 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article<4f34...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Again you are confused. Admiral Burke was asking for permission to send
US planes on an airstrike. There is no need to paint out the
identification on the B-26s. They were painted to look like Castro planes.

[robert dobbson]

Please do point me to where this obituary can be found.

[robert dobbson]

Mr Marsh said: "There is no photograph of Maurice Bishop".
There is, however, a sketch. I'd probably sleep a lot more soundly if
I'd never seen that sketch because, to me, it looks a lot more like
either George or Dimitri VON Mohrenschildt than David Atlee Phillips.

Mr Marsh asked: "Do you have any proof of a connection with the Bay of
Pigs invasion?"
No, obviously not. PROOF would constitute "the smoking gun", which
most certainly would have been destroyed if it ever existed. We would
only be able to "see" it, by the holes or "gaps in the record"
created by it being removed...such as, the precise location of George
Von Mohrenschildt between 1960 and 1962.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/22/2012 8:44 AM, robert dobbson wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:00 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/8/2012 8:16 AM, robert dobbson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 10:11 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 7, 7:09 am, robert dobbson<internetfantasypop...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 6, 8:55 pm, doctorw<PSA...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would

>>>>>> ?Confuse the Public.?

But that sketch was based on the description by Antonio Veciana and he was
trying to implicate Phillips, but he couldn't say it was Phillips because
he had been threatened. He knew Maurice Bishop well over many years and
the relationship sounds like a desk office running an agent.

On March 2, 1976, a staff investigator from the office of U.S. Senator
Richard S. Schweiker (Republican of Pennsylvania (interviewed Antonio
Veciana Blanch, the founder and former leader of Alpha 66, at his home in
Miami.(1) At the time, Senator Schweiker was a member of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence and co-chairman of the Subcommittee on the John
F. Kennedy Assassination.(2) The staff investigator told Veciana that he
was interested in the relationships between U.S. Government agencies and
Cuban exile groups; he did not specifically mention an interest in the
Kennedy assassination.(3) During the course of that interview, Veciana
revealed that from about mid-1960 through mid-1973 he had been directed
and advised in his anti-Castro and anti-Communist activities by an
American he knew as Maurice Bishop.(4) Veciana said that Bishop had guided
him in planning assassination attempts on Premier Fidel Castro in Havana
in 1961 and in Chile in 1971; that Bishop had directed him to organize
Alpha 66 in 1962; and that Bishop, when breaking their relationship in
1973, had paid him $253,000 in cash for his services over the years.

Now, I don't know what DeM did every day of his life, but I don't think
his known history fits the profile that Veciana described.

> Mr Marsh asked: "Do you have any proof of a connection with the Bay of
> Pigs invasion?"
> No, obviously not. PROOF would constitute "the smoking gun", which
> most certainly would have been destroyed if it ever existed. We would

So what if it was destroyed? Richard Helms ordered all the MK/Ultra
documents destroyed but some careful intelligence officers kept extra
copies to protect themselves. Many of those documents have been found many
years later. The DCI ordered all copies of the Inspector General's report
destroyed but they missed one which you can read online. For many years
the WC defenders would taunt us and say we can't prove something is a
fact, comfortable in knowing that they had destroyed the original
documents, when accidentally an unknown copy showed up 40 years later.
They finally found the Air Force One tape. Etc.

Sometimes you can figure out that the destroyed evidence is by fitting in
the surrounding pieces of the puzzle.

> only be able to "see" it, by the holes or "gaps in the record"
> created by it being removed...such as, the precise location of George
> Von Mohrenschildt between 1960 and 1962.
>

Can YOU prove exactly where you were every day between 1960 and 1962?