Pantalla interactiva

MKULTRA was fully operational when Luis Castillo was programmed. It was active that same decade when events blamed on three “lone assassins” changed the course of his- tory.

In a well-executed, mass indoctrination campaign em- ploying all the honor, prestige, and power of the U.S. govern- ment, Americans were told over and over again that the lives of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy were all taken by lone assassins—men operating without po- litical motivation. These three assassins—Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, and Sirhan Sirhan—conveniently left diaries, underlinings in various books, and other self-incriminating clues to establish their guilt.

The evidence gathered on the assassinations remains frag- mented and incomplete. Any event of such magnitude as political assassination is bound to invite a large number of interpretations. While there has not as yet surfaced any single, conclusive proof of a conspiracy, more than eighty percent of the American public believe there was a conspiracy. A string of circumstantial evidence, and a knowledge of the fundamen- tals of mind control invites further speculation.

In each case the method was the same—death by the bul- let. In each case the circumstances were the same—murder in a public place in view of many witnesses. All three assassins were men whose personal histories can be interpreted to indi- cate that they were mentally unstable. Evidence suggests that all three had been hypnotized at one time or another.

But the similarity in their psychological profiles, and the “coincidence” of each having left a trail of evidence, did not seem suspicious to the government investigators of the assas- sination. That three assassins, from three different parts of the country, with three different ethnic backgrounds (and three different victims in three different cities), could all have had the same modus operandi did not seem improbable to the in- vestigators. Those “coincidences” did not even warrant their notice.

A good detective would immediately have suspected that the M.O. of each assassin was a cover laid down by a profes- sional hit team.

The cryptocracy which grew up after World War II was composed of a cadre of professionals, trained during the war. Professional intelligence agents in both the KGB and the CIA are trained to stick to the cover story that works, and use it as long as it does work. Even if the cover story is blown, the agent is supposed to stick to it and, if necessary, die with sealed lips. The “lone nut” theory—that the assassins of King and the Kennedys had acted alone—and the evidence planted to support that theory, stands out as a typical professional in- telligence “cover.”

The modus operandi or method of a murder is the first of two major clues detectives use to solve crimes. The second clue is the motive.

Those who support the “lone nut” theory point to the fact that no clear political motive could be attributed to any of the three assassins. Yet even to a casual student of history each of the three murders was of obvious political benefit to the ex- treme right: John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were all independent thinkers who could not be bought off. They worked for expanded civil rights in a manner the right wing interpreted as being Communist, e.g., it involved gov-

ernment legislation of civil rights. J. Edgar Hoover is known

to have had a personal vendetta against Dr. King, and it has been reported that he lost no love for the Kennedy brothers. The Kennedys were not only on the wrong side of Hoover’s FBI, they were on the wrong side of the CIA as well. JFK fired several top intelligence officers (he asked for Allen Dul- les’ resignation) and at the time of his death he was privately talking about reorganizing the entire U.S. intelligence service.

Robert Kennedy, as attorney general, was waging a tireless campaign against organized crime. His campaign cut across the alliance the CIA had formed with gangsters who had lost their gambling and drug concessions in Cuba. Robert Kennedy was a close friend of Dr. King, and one rumor persists that the assassins had issued a dire warning that RFK not run for president, and that King was sacrificed to show that the group meant business. A similar threat was issued against Ted Ken- nedy when he was entertaining presidential thoughts. Robert Kennedy’s knowledge of the CIA-Mafia link and the CIA assassination teams might have been a motive behind the mo- tive, assuming that fanatical rightwing operators were “con- tracted” for the “Executive actions” against the three.

The obvious results of all three assassinations would indi- cate that the extreme right wing, known to be widespread in the cryptocracy, had the most to gain. By their deaths, the civil rights movement was severely crippled, the conflict in Viet- nam escalated, and the corrupt leaders of the cryptocracy stayed in power.

More recently a rumor has been put forth by CBS News and others that Castro and/or the KGB were behind the assas- sinations. That theory smells like more disinformation from the cryptocracy. The motives of the Communists seem much less clear than the motives of misguided patriotic right- thinking Americans. The cryptocracy was in a better position to benefit from the deaths of the three charismatic and humanitarian leaders than were the Communists.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, his successor appointed a now notorious commission to investi- gate the crime. Headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, it in- cluded Sen. John Sherman Cooper (R., Kentucky), Sen. Rich- ard B. Russell (D., Georgia), Rep. Hale Boggs (D., Louisiana), Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R., Michigan), former CIA Director Al- len Dulles, and John J. McCloy.

After nine months of deliberation, the Warren Commis- sion concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, had shot President Kennedy. Although Oswald was in turn assassinated by Dallas thug Jack Ruby, and although Ruby’s connections with organized crime and the anti-Castro movement were well known, the Commission found no evidence of a conspiracy.

The twenty-six volumes of evidence which made up the commission’s final report left so many questions unasked that by December, 1976, a Harris Survey concluded that 80 percent of the U.S. population did not believe the commission’s con- clusion.

From the beginning, the investigation was slanted towards proving that Oswald was guilty and that he had acted alone. The commission had proceeded with haste to put to rest for- ever the question: Was there a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination? In its haste it had overlooked key facts and ig- nored witnesses who did not support the foregone conclusion that there was no conspiracy—that Oswald was just a “lone nut.”

Throughout the Warren Commission hearings there was conflicting testimony about Oswald. There was testimony that Oswald did not drive a car. There was other testimony that he

did drive, and very well. Some of his acquaintances said he

was a poor shot, too poor to have accomplished the feat of marksmanship in Dealy Plaza. Others said that he was a fine marksman. Some said, by turns, that he was a Communist, a pro-Castro and an anti-Castro sympathizer. His own mother said that he performed undercover work for the U.S. govern- ment. Out of this mass of conflicting evidence, the Warren Commission simply took what was needed to support its fore- gone conclusion, and relegated the rest to published transcripts or to top-secret files in the National Archives.

There were so many conflicting descriptions of Oswald that many independent assassination investigators subse- quently concluded that there must have been at least two Oswalds—the “real” one and an intelligence double. If, how- ever, one considers that Oswald might have been controlled in the same way as Candy Jones or Luis Castillo—split into mul- tiple personalities—another explanation for the conflicting descriptions of the assassin becomes credible. He might have been an excellent shot in one zombie state, and in another he might have been blocked so that he could not even aim a rifle. In one state he might have had the ability to drive a car, while in another state he might have had a posthypnotic block so that he could not drive.

Oswald said that he didn’t kill anybody. His statement was recorded in the basement of the Dallas Police Station on

the day after the assassination. Captured on film by a local CBS film crew, Oswald told reporters, “I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation.” In answer to an inaudible question from one reporter Oswald said, “Well, I was questioned by a judge. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don’t know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything, except that I’m accused of murdering a police- man. I know nothing more than that. I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance.”

“Did you kill the President?” another reporter asked. “No,” Oswald answered, “I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.”

Ten years after Oswald made that statement, George O’Toole applied a newly developed “truth detector,” the Psy- chological Stress Evaluator (PSE), to the soundtrack of the film which recorded Oswald’s protestation of innocence. The PSE, unlike the polygraph, does not have to be connected to the body to measure stress. It measures subaudible micro- tremors in the human voice which occur whenever an individ- ual experiences even mild anxiety or stress. The micro-tremors form a distinct pattern on the PSE chart and can then be com- pared to stress patterns in other parts of the statement. A de- liberate lie, especially one which involves personal jeopardy, stands out clearly from the other stress patterns that might represent situational stress or vague anxiety.

Oswald was in a situation of high stress that day. He had been grilled for hours by police. He had been manhandled and accused of killing not only a police officer but also the Presi- dent of the United States.

Yet the PSE analysis of Oswald’s statement showed that he exhibited far more stress when he was talking about not being represented by a lawyer than he did when he denied murdering the President or the police officer. George O’Toole concluded, as have many other investigators, that Oswald was innocent. He could not have been consciously involved in the

assassination as a fall guy—a patsy—or he would have shown stress in his answers to these key questions on the PSE.*

But what if he had been hypno-programmed so that he could remember nothing of his involvement in the assassina- tion plot? Then every lie-detector test in the world would prove him innocent, since consciously he would believe that he was innocent. Hypnosis is the only reliable way to defeat a lie detector, whether it be a polygraph or the more advanced PSE.

Among evidence concealed from the commission was a CIA document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in 1976, which quoted an unidentified CIA officer report- ing to his superiors on Oswald. According to that memo, which had been written only three days after JFK’s assassina- tion, Agency officials had discussed interviewing Oswald for intelligence purposes in the early 1960s. The same document revealed that Allen Dulles had secretly coached the CIA on how the Agency should deny having any connection with Oswald. According to one of the memos, Dulles strongly rec- ommended that CIA Director Helms deny under oath that the CIA had any material in its files which suggested an Agency relationship with Oswald. Later disclosures revealed that Oswald did indeed have a CIA “201 file.”

In sworn testimony before the Warren Commission in 1964, Richard Helms applied the artful deception which came from a lifetime of CIA training; he testified that the Agency had “never even contemplated” making any contact with Oswald prior to the assassination. That the CIA did make con- tact with him was never disclosed to the commission.

Despite the attempts of Allen Dulles to steer commission investigators away from other information which linked

*

Posing as a Look reporter, former CIA employee O’Toole con- ducted and recorded interviews with local police officials and FBI men who were the original investigators in the Kennedy case. Too many of their PSE patterns showed levels of stress which could only be interpreted as having been the result of willful deception. In his book The Assassination Tapes, O’Toole offers the details of his PSE analysis, and concludes, not surprisingly, that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Oswald to both the FBI and the CIA, the rumor that Oswald had been sent to Russia as an intelligence agent persisted.

In an attempt to scotch that rumor, Dulles told the com- mission that it would be impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that Oswald had or had not been an agent or in- former. He said, astonishingly, that Oswald could have been a CIA agent without anyone ever knowing about it!

During one meeting of the commission, Senator Russell asked Dulles, “If Oswald never had assassinated the President, and had been in the employ of the FBI, and somebody had gone to the FBI, would they have denied he was an agent?”

“Oh yes,” the ex-CIA chief replied. “They would be the first to deny it.”

“Your agents would have done the same thing?” Senator Russell asked incredulously.

“Exactly,” Dulles answered.

At another juncture, John J. McCloy said that he had re- ceived several inquiries about the Oswald-agent rumor. He asked Dulles point blank, “What is there to this story?”

Dulles went in circles: “This is a terribly hard thing to dis- prove, you know. How do you disprove a fellow was not your agent?”

“You could disprove it, couldn’t you?” Congressman Boggs asked.

Dulles replied, simply, “No.”

“So I will ask you,” Boggs continued, “did you have agents about whom you had no record whatsoever?”

“The record might not be on paper,” Dulles said. “But on paper would have been hieroglyphics that only two people knew what they meant, and anybody outside the agency would not know and you could say this meant the agent, and some- body else could say it meant another agent.”

The discussion then turned to U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers. Dulles explained that Powers was a different kind of agent. He had signed a contract with the CIA.

Alluding to the Oswald-CIA relationship, Boggs asked Dulles, “Let’s say Powers did not have a signed contract but was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn’t he?”

“Would he tell it under oath?” Chief Justice Warren won- dered.

“I wouldn’t think he would tell it under oath, no,” Dulles replied matter of factly.

“Why?” asked Warren.

“He ought not to tell it under oath,” Dulles said, offering Warren a lesson which years of legal training made him inca- pable of learning: the cryptocracy operates completely outside of the law and, because of the power of the “national security” rationale, it operates completely above the law.

Dulles admitted later, while responding to a question from McCloy, that a CIA operative might not tell the truth even to his own superior.

“What you do,” Boggs indignantly said, “is you make our problem, if this be true, utterly impossible because you say this rumor [that Oswald was a CIA agent] can’t be dissipated under any circumstances.”

“I don’t think it can,” Dulles admitted, “unless you be- lieve Mr. Hoover, and so forth and so on, which probably most of the people will.”

Hoover, of course, had written a carefully worded re- sponse to a Commission inquiry about Oswald’s FBI connec- tions. He denied all association between Oswald and the FBI.

Also ignored by the Warren Commission was information about the cryptocracy’s attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Dulles presumably knew about the plots which took place during his tenure with the Agency, but he remained mute. Richard Helms was the only CIA official on active duty to have direct contact with the Warren Commission, and al- though he provided them with information on a number of things, he volunteered nothing about the unsuccessful plots against Castro—plots which would have been within the commission’s “need to know” since they showed that the cryptocracy had practical experience in assassination planning. Testifying before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activi- ties, Helms revealed how the cryptocracy evaded and withheld information from the Warren Commission. His testimony il- lustrated the cryptocracy’s contempt for the helpless commis- sion, the American people, and above all the truth.

During the Church Committee’s investigation of the CIA’s involvement in assassinations, Senator Church asked Helms: “Since you had knowledge of the CIA involvement in these assassination plots against Castro, and knew it at the time . . . I would have thought . . . that ought to have been re- lated to the Commission, because it does bear on the motives, whatever else.”

Helms: “ . . . Mr. Allen Dulles was a member of the War- ren Commission. And the first assassination plot happened during his time as director. What he said to the Warren Com- mission about this . . . I don’t know. But at least he was sitting right there in [the commission’s] deliberations and knew about this, and I am sure that the same thought that occurred to you must have occurred to him.”

Senator Morgan: “You were charged with furnishing the Warren Commission information from the CIA, information that you thought was relevant?”

Helms: “No sir, I was instructed to reply to inquiries from the Warren Commission for information from the Agency. I was not asked to initiate any particular thing.”

Morgan: “. . . In other words if you weren’t asked for it, you didn’t give it?”

Helms: “That’s right sir.”

Nevertheless, despite the denials of Dulles and Hoover, the rumor persisted that Oswald had defected to Russia on a clandestine mission for the CIA. Some believed he had been uncovered by the KGB and subsequently programmed like the Manchurian Candidate to return to the U.S. and act as an un- conscious “sleeper agent,” a programmed assassin.

Following up on this rumor, J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel to the Warren Commission, wrote a letter to CIA Di- rector Helms requesting all information the CIA had on Rus- sian “brainwashing” capabilities.

In response, Helms claimed that there were “two major methods of altering or controlling behavior,” and the Soviets