Operation Northwoods: false-flag proposal or a case of Who's on First?

When made public by those in power, self-incriminating documents must be treated with caution

Suspicion that Operation Northwoods, the infamous 1962 unimplemented false-flag plan to serve as pretext to invade Cuba, might not be quite what it seemed was prompted while considering an article about conspiracies acknowledged by the authorities, 9 huge government conspiracies that actually happened, that included this plan. As I have discovered that the explanation provided by the authorities for a conspiracy can simply be misdirection from the real explanation, it occurred to me that this might be true of Operation Northwoods and on investigation the evidence shows my hunch has merit.

In this article I will demonstrate irrefutably that “Operations Northwoods” was a fabricated collection of documents and the obvious inference to make from this fabrication is a propaganda agenda.

Coherent false-flag approval process or a case of Who’s on First?

Like the person whose daily subjection to the covid propaganda reminded him of the fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes, despite only slight acquaintance with it, when I settled down to carefully analyse the bundle of documents presented as “Operation Northwoods”, with my brain scrambling dimly to make sense of them, the signature Abbott and Costello comedy routine, Who’s on First?, came to mind although I had only a vague awareness of what it was about.

On examining the documents carefully it’s very clear that there is simply no way to connect the Pretexts document containing all the actions for the false-flag event against Cuba to an authorisation by senior military staff through a credible documentation trail. Moreover, there is certainly no evidence of its being presented to and rejected by the President.

When there is no clear evidence of authenticity or submission for approval by the President while there is much that argues against it what reason do we have to believe a claim?

In summary, the anomalies found are:

• stamping of the document pages with UNCLASSIFIED rather than DECLASSIFIED

• memos lacking date and signature

• memos and stated attachments not matching

• text that can only be considered gobbledygook

• inclusion of a person long retired in a non-relevant position

• most importantly, a possible option to kill people for real in the plan that makes no sense

Using the pdf bundle of documents stored in the NSA archive known as "Operation Northwoods" I make a number of points working backwards from the latest to earliest dated document (14 March - 9 March 1962), inserting undated documents where they seem most relevant while ignoring documents with little relevance. A re-typed version of the document collection, ordered according to the analysis below can be found here and a more detailed analysis here.

1. While we must scratch our heads wondering why such a seemingly exposing collection was declassified at this point in time we must also wonder at the fact that despite being designated Top Secret the documents are stamped UNCLASSIFIED rather than DECLASSIFIED.

2. Anomalies displayed in the barely legible document labelled “Joint Chiefs of Staff Decision on JCS 1969/321 / A Note by the Secretaries”, 14 March, unsigned (see image below for basic content) include:

• With regard to Point 1, as there is no document marked JCS 1969/321 we must infer - a thought process for which there should be no need - that the document referred to is entitled Justification For US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS) which contains a Paragraph 8 with recommendations. These recommendations refer to "Enclosure A together with its attachments", however, the document labelled Enclosure A is an unsigned and undated memorandum which is almost identical to a signed memorandum (next point) and lists no attachments. This unsigned memorandum contains asterisked content elaborating on an earlier memorandum (not included), the elaboration being that it is for Gen. Craig with no indication of who it is from. The only person who Gen. Craig can reasonably refer to is General Edward Craig, who served as director of the Marine Corps Reserve prior to his retirement on 1 June 1951, a decade before and after more than thirty-three years of Marine Corps service at the age of 65. We have no reason to believe he returned to service after retirement.

• Point 2 is plainly gobbledygook. The Commandant is a naval position in charge of training and this proposal is ostensibly for a real life operation while Title 10, US Code 141 doesn’t have a (c), only an (a) and (b) and simply specifies that there is the position, Inspector General of the Department of Defense and the duties entailed.

3. The memorandum dated 13 March 1962 and signed by the Chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, L.L. Lemnitzer, for the Secretary of Defense refers to an attached memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project outlining pretexts for military intervention in Cuba. The memorandum referred to, however, is labelled DRAFT and is unsigned and undated nor is its source indicated. It is also entitled Appendix to Enclosure A although the memorandum referring to it simply says "attached memorandum" and there is no clear sense to this title.

There are more anomalies (analysis here), however, those listed are sufficient to undermine any case for authenticity. It is beyond irregular to attach unsigned and undated memoranda and for documents to be titled with titles that make no sense. In how they relate to each other it takes a great deal of patience to make any sense of the documents at all and although the Pretexts document which receives most of the focus is not difficult to make sense of of itself, a false-flag proposal without the context of authorisation means very little. It could be some kind of training exercise as is suggested in the reference to a Commandant … or it could have another purpose for which a case is put below.

---

How would a self-incriminating unimplemented false-flag plan be a useful propaganda device?

The associated documents seemingly were drafted in 1962 and declassified in 1998, just three years before 9/11, an event the evidence suggests was planned even as far back as the 1940s well before the twin towers were built. If we divide us psychographically into

• Group A (the Believers) - inclined to believe the authorities (90%), the vast majority of whom will have no interest in the document and are unlikely to even be aware of it

• Group B (the Disbelievers) - inclined/willing where justified to disbelieve the authorities (10%)

the plan can work for both groups as follows:

• For the Believers - encourage their belief that although those in power may come up with the odd dastardly scheme they would never implement it (see discussion on anti-conspiracy site, Metabunk)

• For the Disbelievers - encourage their belief that those in power will, in fact, implement dastardly false-flag schemes and kill people in their implementation.

Essentials of psyops - it’s all about make-believe

There are three essentials of psychological operations (psyops) it is very helpful to understand:

• Propaganda works better the less it corresponds to reality and psyops are about mind control using magician’s tricks not simulating reality as closely as possible.

• This seemingly counterintuitive element allows a rule - which wouldn’t be possible otherwise - that we see obeyed in every event recognised as a psyop known as Revelation of the Method aka Hidden in Plain Sight where the truth is laid bare underneath the propaganda. The clear nonsensicality of the documents forming “Operation Northwoods” is an example of Revelation of the Method. “Operation Northwoods” has both the Believers and the Disbelievers completely fooled although it has been lying there in plain sight chuckling to itself for 25 years waiting only for the magic propaganda dust to be blown away. Propaganda really does work like magic.

• Psyops are formulated to cater for us psychographically. They want everyone to get it wrong, including those who disbelieve them, so they target both the Believers and the Disbelievers knowing that the propaganda will land differently for each and that the Believers will be oblivious to or interpret differently the propaganda targeted to the Disbelievers which provides a kind of “Disbeliever propaganda playground” in which the propagandists work their magic against the Disbelievers, who - armed with only part-truth - are severely hampered in any effort to promulgate the truth because half-truths make great lies. The targeting is much more sophisticated than simply believer/disbeliever. We are also targeted according to other inclinations: liberal/conservative, racist/anti-racist, Zionist/Anti-Zionist, etc and no doubt in ways non-insiders have no clue of.

We can see that in the Pretexts document there is not a single action that actually speaks of real killing as being a definite part of it which is only to be expected in a psyop plan. Blowing up a ship (or a building) does not necessarily imply that people would be in it and in Action 2 there is clear indication of fakery of death - “Conduct funerals for mock-victims …”. (In the case of “blowing up a ship” we might infer that if they had a handy dilapidated clunker to blow up they would but if not, fake it somehow, no?)

The only action where real death is alluded to is Action 4 where it is suggested only as a possible alternative to simulation (emphasis added):

”The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated).”

However, there are a few things to take note of:

• “boatload of Cubans” has a casual non-military ring to it

• The plan’s actions generally are all about smoke’n’mirrors fakery from go to whoa. Why would the “real” death possibility be inserted just for this action when no other action puts this possibility forward and we see no reason not to be able to fake the sinking of the “boatload of Cubans” just like everything else? Faking the sinking of a “boatload of Cubans” is just part and parcel of intelligence operations. It’s no biggie.

• In fact, sinking the “boatload of Cubans” for real seems to be far more problematic than faking it and makes precisely zero sense:

  • Where would the boatload come from? How would they orchestrate it? Would they lure Cubans wishing to flee Cuba onto a boat and then betray them by sinking them? Or would they keep watch for a boatload, hoping it showed up in a timely manner, and then sink it - doesn’t really seem to fit the style of this kind of operation, does it? In psyops they like to control both the action and the information and waiting around for a “boatload of Cubans” to appear in order to sink it is simply not part of psyop MO.

  • And if they should manage to orchestrate it, isn’t there the risk of the “friendly Cubans” included in other actions in the plan learning of this boatload-of-their-compatriots sinking? How would they feel about that?

  • A “boatload of Cubans” are people fleeing enemy shores to seek refuge in your country and who no doubt would become willing allies in future fighting of your enemy. It seems pretty churlish to sink them for absolutely no good reason whatsoever nor would it be a great morale-boosting action for your soldiers to engage in.

Can you see where this is heading?

“Operation Northwoods” was released three years before 9/11 while the equally infamous document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, by think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was published in September 2000.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

---

Both Operation Northwoods and the PNAC document were planted in the 9/11 “disbeliever propaganda playground”. However, when we blow away the magic propaganda dust what we have are three big psyops:

---

PEARL HARBOUR - EVACUATED BOMBING

If Pearl Harbour being an evacuated bombing seems surprising let’s consider the following:

In the mainstream media we see “admitted”:

“On the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbour, the attack that propelled America into the Second World War, a declassified memo shows that the Japanese surprise attack was expected.”
​Pearl Harbour memo shows US warned of Japanese attack, The Telegraph, 30 March 2019

So if we can see:

• the Northwoods plan shows psyops are all about smoke’n’mirrors fakery and

• the US top brass seemed to want an excuse to enter the war

why wouldn’t they just fake the deaths of the soldiers and do the “funerals for mock-victims” thing indicated in the Northwoods plan? (No doubt the alleged dead would have included both made-up people and real people who are treated like those in Witness Protection Programs.) Why wouldn’t they simply evacuate the area to be bombed to avoid their soldiers dying completely unnecessarily, especially when they were planning to enter the war? It makes no sense whatsoever not to do that. There are those who argue that the attack itself was faked (and I’d tend to very much agree) but whether the attack was faked or only anticipated we would surely expect the fakery of the soldiers’ deaths … and, in fact, the Revelation-of-the-Method style evidence strongly favours that hypothesis.

---

OPERATION NORTHWOODS - FAKED FALSE-FLAG PROPOSAL

---

SEPTEMBER 11 - FAKED AIRLINER CRASHES AND EVACUATED BUILDINGS

September 11 involved faked plane crashes and destructions of evacuated buildings. It’s just like Pearl Harbour:

• The Northwoods plan shows psyops are all about smoke’n’mirrors fakery and

• The US wanted an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq

They didn’t want to kill people for real in their psyop, they didn’t need to kill people for real to make people believe in their deaths and just as the sinking of the “boatload of Cubans” for real would have been highly problematic so too would have been killing the people in the buildings for real. There is no reasonable way to involve the actors necessary including media personnel, agency staff and demolition crews, who would need to toss their professional standards and ethos in the garbage by only partly evacuating the buildings before destroying them. Surely the “funerals for mock-victims” thing as indicated in the Northwoods plan plus complementary death and injury fakery devices would be a much better course of action. More importantly, of course, the Revelation-of-the-Method style evidence favours fake death and injury over real (which isn’t to say no one died or was injured).

---

Sadly, these phony deaths led to a far, far greater number of deaths. If we work out the phoniness in advance we have a better chance of avoiding the later far more significant number.

REFERENCES

• Operation Northwoods - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

• 9 huge government conspiracies that actually happened - https://www.businessinsider.com/true-government-conspiracies-2013-12

• 12 logical fallacies unmasked in the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" (The Appeal to Authority fallacy) - https://petraliverani.substack.com/i/123858867/the-authorities-decide-which-events-are-conspiracies-the-appeal-to-authority-fallacy

• The Emperor’s New Clothes - https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

• Who’s on First? - www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYOUFGfK4bU

• Operations Northwoods document, NSA archive - https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

• Operation Northwoods clean copy - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X2y2O4VqNtm2TS6ppbb8nhnYHdoruJSx/view?usp=drive_link

• Operation Northwoods detailed analysis - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a1NT2aOJTfcohZ1TpVB33EV4oHYpgG0U/view?usp=drive_link

• General Edward Craig, Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_A._Craig

• Title 10, US Code 141 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/141

• Allusions to 9/11 in film, TV and music in prior years - youtu.be/_AUclXzapJo?si=wegOxMRxncJbugge&t=44

• Anti-conspiracy theory site, Metabunk, discussion of Operation Northwoods - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is-operation-northwoods-a-hoax-no-but-its-not-an-operation-either.9530/

• Quote on how propaganda works, Anthony Daniels - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study

• Explanations of Revelation the Method and Predictive Programming - http://soundofheart.org/galacticfreepress/content/revelation-method-predictive-programming-and-prime-directive

• Project for a New American Century - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

• Memo showing warning of a Japanese Attack, The Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html

• Evidence that Pearl Harbour was staged - https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/pearl-harbour.html

• 9/11: The False Dilemma propaganda strategy - https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-false-dilemma-propaganda

RELATED READING (my Substacks)

• 12 logical fallacies unmasked in the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist"

• Nonsensicalities in the 9/11 firefighter oral histories

• Both believers and disbelievers of the 9/11 story must accept miracles and absurdities

• JFK: the magic bullet theory, John Connally and simple logic