JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
A CONSPIRACY NUT SAID:
Gus Russo On Bugliosi: "He did a horrendous job." [End Russo quote.] .... In reference to his own work, you know what that means Von Pein? That means as bad a job as you can do.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Gus was only referring to what he believes was a "horrendous job" by Vince of debunking the awful 2006 Wilfried Huismann documentary film "Rendezvous With Death".
Here is the full Russo quote:
"Vince attempted to debunk the film, but in fact did a horrendous job -- as I think you will agree when you read the book." -- Gus Russo; October 29, 2008
The "Rendezvous" film plays a very large part in Mr. Russo's 2008 book "Brothers In Arms", wherein Russo tries desperately to link Cuban "G2" agents with Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK.
In his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi uses up 10-plus pages of endnotes to dismantle (in a good bit of detail) Huismann's "Rendezvous" documentary and, hence, along the way also largely discredits Russo's identical (or nearly identical) theory about supposed Cuban "G2" involvement.
Far from doing a "horrendous job", Bugliosi does a pretty good job (IMO) of ripping apart the "G2/Oswald" theory that is alleged to be the absolute truth in Huismann's film.
Here's a sampling of Vince Bugliosi's comments on the subject:
"Unbelievably, out of all these fabricated statements and nothingness, a reportedly well-credentialed German filmmaker, one Wilfried Huismann, directed a one-hour documentary, titled..."Rendezvous with Death", that was shown for the first time in Berlin on January 4, 2006.
The entire thrust of Huismann’s documentary is that Castro’s Cuban intelligence people (G-2) used Oswald to kill Kennedy once he made the offer at the Cuban consulate to kill Kennedy, and the person who paid Oswald to do so was the black man with the reddish hair, who is identified in the program as a top Cuban G-2 agent in Mexico named Cesar Morales Mesa. Using Gilberto Alvarado Ugarte’s original fabrication that the black man (Morales) paid Oswald $6,500 to kill Kennedy (Huismann does not mention Alvarado by name in the documentary), Huismann proceeds to build his entire show on this nonexistent foundation.
Huismann isn’t troubled by the fact that the basis for the alleged offer was Oswald’s supposedly saying, “I’m going to kill Kennedy for this” as he headed out of the Cuban consulate office after his request for an in-transit visa to Cuba was turned down, and that the only two people who we know were in the office at the time, Silvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue, have said they never heard Oswald say any such thing. Huismann, of course, doesn’t tell his audience this.
Huismann is also not troubled by the fact that Oswald would have had no reason to say he was going to kill Kennedy “for this,” that is, for being turned down by the Cuban consulate for his in-transit visa. And he sees nothing preposterous about the discussion to murder the president of the United States and the payment to Oswald taking place right outside the Cuban embassy, when Cuban intelligence (the G-2 agent, Morales, who supposedly made the payment) had to know that the lenses of CIA cameras were focused on that area.
Nor does he apparently feel that Alvarado’s claim to have actually seen (and apparently diligently counted out) precisely $6,500 in American bills ($1,500 for expense money, Alvarado says) being paid to Oswald is preposterous on its face.
Further, Huismann is not bothered by the fact that if a Cuban G-2 agent gave Oswald $6,500 (at least the equivalent of $20,000 today) to kill Kennedy, what happened to all this money? Why was Oswald virtually broke at the time of his death, he and Marina having a grand total of $183.87 to their name? How did Oswald go through the equivalent of $20,000 (or even $6,500) in less than two months? What did he splurge this amount of money on?
In addition, Huismann isn’t concerned by the fact that Alvarado said he saw this alleged payoff to Oswald on September 18, 1963, when we know Oswald wasn’t even in Mexico City, being present and accounted for in New Orleans. Nor is Huismann troubled by the fact that Alvarado took a CIA polygraph test in which the polygraph examiner concluded he was probably lying, and that Alvarado said, “I must be mistaken.” Huismann, naturally, doesn’t tell his audience any of this.
None of these things troubled Huismann. Nothing was going to stand in his way in his attempt to push his ridiculous story on as many unsuspecting people as he could.
Since, at its source, there was no basis for this TV documentary, what did Huismann do to beef up a story worthless at its core? He does what nearly all conspiracy authors, documentarians, and motion picture directors do: embellish the story from the original nut (in this case, Alvarado) with stories from other nuts or frauds, and in this case with two former American public servants who should be ashamed of themselves [former FBI agent Laurence Keenan and former Secretary of State Alexander Haig].
Remarkably, Huismann, for all his labors, was able to come up with only one new “face” to justify this “documentary,” an alleged former Cuban G-2 agent who is the clear star of Huismann’s flick. He is also a joke. I say “face” because for supposed fear of retaliation, the man’s face is bathed in shadows on the screen. And his name, Oscar Marino, is not his real name (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on January 15, 2006), though Huismann isn’t kind enough to tell his audience (or researchers who want to check out Marino’s background) this.
So we have a faceless, nameless person as the star of Huismann’s shameless “documentary.” That itself would be bad enough, but Marino has absolutely nothing to say. “Oswald volunteered to kill Kennedy,” Marino tells the audience. When I asked Gus Russo if Marino was basing this on something other than Alvarado’s original allegation, he said he was not, that Alvarado was Marino’s source for this (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on January 15, 2006). Since we know that Oswald never made the threat to kill Kennedy that Alvarado claims (but later retracted) he made, we thereby know at this point that everything Marino says thereafter has to be a fabrication.
So we learn from Marino that with or without Castro, Cuban G-2 agents planned to murder Kennedy (and thereby ensure their deaths at U.S. hands, or if Castro never approved of the operation, at his hands if he found out what they did or attempted to do without his authorization), and Oswald simply “adopted” G-2’s “plans.” Since we know that Oswald himself bought the murder weapon (Cuban G-2 apparently wanted Oswald to have the absolute cheapest, most inexpensive rifle that could be found) and, through Ruth Paine’s suggestion, got himself the job at the Book Depository Building, one wonders what “plans” of the G-2 Oswald “adopted,” and how G-2 helped Oswald in “carrying out the assassination.”
Just as Marino could tell Huismann with “complete certainty” that Kennedy’s death was a G-2 agency operation, I can tell Huismann with even more “complete certainty” that even though Marino, in effect, confessed to complicity with other G-2 members in Kennedy’s murder, he actually knows (even if Huismann doesn’t) that he has absolutely nothing to fear.
Marino certainly would realize that if Cuban G-2 and Castro were vindictive enough and powerful enough to wipe out the president of the United States in the United States, they would be vindictive and powerful enough to wipe out non-entities like himself in Mexico for squealing on them.
If Huismann could find the supposedly ailing Marino, surely they could. But Marino knows he doesn’t have to worry a whit since he knows his story is fabricated nonsense that only nonsensical conspiracy theorists would have any interest in, not very serious people like Castro and his G-2. You can’t squeal on someone when there is nothing to squeal on.
And even though there is no statute of limitation for murder in the United States, Marino also knows he doesn’t have to worry about FBI agents knocking on Huismann’s door to obtain Marino’s identity and whereabouts (by court order if necessary) so they could arrest him and extradite him back to the United States for prosecution for Kennedy’s murder. Why? Because Marino, I, and virtually all other sensible people know that no one in authority would take him seriously. The authorities, including Castro, only deal harshly with real people telling real stories, not humbugs like Marino. Huismann is either pathetically gullible or a fraud.
So what we have here with Huismann’s "Rendezvous with Death" is a very trite rendezvous with a foundationless base (Alvarado’s recanted allegation), old witnesses whose stories have already been discredited, a star witness without a name or face and nothing to say other than to make a naked declaration, and two former American public servants, tossed in for cachet purposes, who made fools of themselves.
The question is how did Huismann convince his Japanese and German benefactors to part with close to $1 million on something as patently worthless as this “documentary”? A related question is why would Gus Russo, a respected assassination researcher, lend his name to a project as insubstantial and sophistical as this?
In defense of Russo, he pointed out to me that he felt the Cubans in the documentary had credibility because they had to be pressured (some for months) to participate in the program, so they weren’t seeking notoriety. Also, he says, they got no pay, and wanted their names changed. And they spoke in a way, he added, that was believable to him. (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on February 8, 2006)"
-- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; Pages 731-733, 735-737, and 741 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
December 16, 2008
Posted By: David Von Pein