Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Is the CIA Suppressing JFK Files?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:00 PM
Original message
Why Is the CIA Suppressing JFK Files?
Lisa Pease asks a most relevant question:



Why Is the CIA Suppressing JFK Files?

By Lisa Pease
October 23, 2007

Editor’s Note: The CIA continues to resist the release of documents pertaining to a CIA officer who oversaw an anti-Castro Cuban group that had curious dealings with Lee Harvey Oswald in the run-up to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In this guest essay, historian Lisa Pease comments on how the CIA still is subverting the intent of the JFK Records Act:

The CIA is withholding key documents in the JFK assassination case.

As Jefferson Morley reports in the Huffington Post:

"Lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency faced pointed questions in a federal court hearing Monday morning about the agency's efforts to block disclosure of long-secret records about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

Morley filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the CIA for failing to disclose records about a CIA officer named George Joannides. Joannides was responsible for running the DRE, an anti-Castro CIA front group that had extensive interactions with Lee Harvey Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy.

The CIA has consistently refused to release Joannides' records, even though they are mandated to by the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/102307b.html



Gee. Why wouldn't the CIA want to release information about the assassination of President Kennedy?

Any guesses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm sure they're just breaking the law because they have nothing at all to hide.
:sarcasm:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. No cover up at all, there.


Senator Prescott Bush, Sr. (right), checks under the hood of one Senator Richard Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. The Nixon/Prescott Bush agreement included salary and SLUSH FUND ---
just to be "their guy" . . . !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. What was it Nixon said that was captured on one of his tapes?

Something like "the Warren Commission report is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the American public?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Agree with the comment . . . but don' t recall ever reading it ---
Are you sure it was Nixon --- ???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Here you go, reported by no less than the BBC....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1848157.stm

Scroll down to the section "Kennedy's Assassination". Unfortunately, Nixon didn't elaborate on why he felt it was a hoax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Thanks! I missed it -- and this was interesting to see again . . . .. .
President Nixon was also concerned that losses in Vietnam might threaten his re-election chances, and the frustrated president discussed using nuclear weapons with his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.

Mr Kissinger quickly dismissed the idea. "That, I think, would just be too much," he told the president. "The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?" he asked Mr Kissinger, adding, "I just want you to think big".


D&P: "Just think big . . . " !!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
185. I didn't know Nixon said that
That interesting. Thanks for the link and the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-28-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #185
237. Nixon the Nuclear Nut expected results...
...like surrender from a people fighting for their families, homes and nation.

Know your BFEE: Nixon Threatened to Nuke Vietnam

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3953519
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. a guess: because the President's father is still alive?
It might raise some interesting - and untimely - questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. we have a winner!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. No man. No problem.


President Kennedy's problem was that he wanted peace.

JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!

Gee. What name's been pro-war for 40-plus years, now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. That was Stalin's motto, as related to me by a friend. "No man. No problem."
The implications were obvious enough in his day. Get rid of the person giving you problems. Today, things are done in a far more subtle manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
110. Dr. David Kelley would beg to diffa!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #110
209. Ohhhh...so sad! I just wish
some of these ratholes would get a surprise attack when they were on a "suicided" mission. It could happen. Just everybody, who is high profile and knows they would be better off "leaving town" as far as the bfee is concerned,.. take a Crash Course in James Bondmanship "Saving your Valuble Ass" 101!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
93. and, perhaps "more importantly" (although really more scarily)
they need to keep the family name clean for Jeb's run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #93
158. Jeb's chances of being elected President....
lie somewhere between slim, and none. Big brother has forever tarnished the Bush name (like it wasn't tarnished enough already) and has sealed Jeb's fate. This must really frost Poppy's flakes because Jeb is the smarter, more favored son and was to be the crowning jewel of the Bush dynasty. Now he'll be relegated to the dust-bin of history because his older, MUCH more stupid brother has shattered any chance he ever had of running for or winning the Presidency.

How I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Bush family gathering. :rofl: The tension must be so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-28-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #158
238. Vice President Jebthro isn't out of the cards.
John Ellis Bush came out for Willard Romney way early. Cofer Black of CIA and Blackwater fame also has thrown his towel into the Mitt camp.

For certain insiders, the vice-presidency has been a stepping-stone, so to speak, to the Oval Office. And another national tragedy like a presidential assassination, explained as an unforseen terrorist attack, would serve as the catalyst for martial law and the big round-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
165. Hmph. Why would a nice lady from the Harris Co Republican Party
have information on a man who had been talking about killing the President? Why indeed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritersBlock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
76. My first thought was, "Hang on a second - Joseph P Kennedy died a long time ago..."

But then I realized you were talking about the current pResident.


I am getting old & hard of thinking lately.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GrantDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Waiting until daddy Bush is no longer around...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Poppy got ''Spooked'' at President Ford's Funeral
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. One conspirator protecting another ---
Ford distorted information re JFK assassiantion ---
the first rifle found was marked "Mauser 7.65" as pointed out by gun shop owner Weissberg and in presence of Craig who also helped find the gun. Ford lied.

Ford also worked to move the right shoulder wound to JFK's "back" and "up" --
!!!! So the magic bullet could be created!!!
By the way, the right shoulder would was also at a 45 degree DOWNWARD slant.
How many believed that this wound connected to the neck wound????




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
67. With all due respect, you're repeating classic JFK conspiracy theory spin...
First of all, with respect to the "misidentification" of the rifle, it was actually found by Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone and Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman. The reason it was misidentified was it was stuck between some boxes and neither one touched it (for obvious reasons) and they had to guess (not to mention that a Mannlicher-Carcano looks very much like a Mauser). I don't know where you're getting the name Craig from nor is there any "gun shop owner" named Weisberg, although there is a conspiracy author named Harold Weisberg who had absolutely nothing to do with finding the rifle.

Secondly, if you look at the frames from the Zapruder film, you'll notice that JFK's coat and shirt are bunched up when that shot hit and there is NO discrepancy with the entrance and exit wounds. This has been examined repeatedly over the years, but is still recycled by those who can't accept what actually happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #67
137. What you are saying is nonsense . . . the rifle . . .
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 02:59 PM by defendandprotect
AND, by the John McCone/Dir-CIA memo confirming to the Secret Service that Oswald was trained by the CIA for spying assignments, including in Russia.]

----------------

FIRST, there is no chain of evidence for any of the rifles found.
And, there are reports of more than one rifle having been found.

Secondly, here's a YouTube link to Roger Craig where this story of finding the rifle is made clear ---
Presumably "Weitzman" is the reference?
However, it was someone with a background in guns . . .

BUT THE POINT IS THAT ALL THOSE PRESENT COULD READ . ..
AND THE GUN CLEARLY WAS LABELLED . . . "MAUSER 7.65"

Two Men from Dallas -
Roger Craig, etal -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R6vXeg50rjs&mode=related&search=

Now . . . AGAIN . . . on the gun . . . whatever gun you talk about there is no chain of evidence for. There was no connection to Oswald by fingerprints on the rifle, either.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #137
141. And re propaganda about JFK's coat . . .
This is right-wing propaganda . . .
what you are relating here is the OLDEST of myths, recirculated recently.

QUOTE:
Secondly, if you look at the frames from the Zapruder film, you'll notice that JFK's coat and shirt are bunched up when that shot hit and there is NO discrepancy with the entrance and exit wounds. This has been examined repeatedly over the years, but is still recycled by those who can't accept what actually happened.UNQUOTE

The autopsy records show a wound in JFK's right shoulder not in his "back" . . . and it is Ford who tries to move it up to connect with the neck wound -- which is a shot from the front. Possibly by something like a dart which fired something to paralyze him. Umbrella man is the suspect there.

The right shoulder wound is a DOWNWARD WOUND -- AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE.

The Magic Bullet is mere myth --






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. Right -wing propaganda???
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 02:39 PM by SDuderstadt
How on earth could one conclude that Vincent Bugliosi is a right-winger? Have you read his book excoriating the US Supreme Court on Bush v Gore?

As far as the distinction between JFK's shoulder and his back, forgive me, but isn't the lower part of one's shoulder part of the back??? It certainly isn't the side or the front. Beyond that, are you claiming that the exit wound in his throat was actually an entrance wound and the small hole in his "shoulder" an exit wound? If you are, do you know what an exit wound looks like? If you aren't, was the bullet still in JFK? This just gets goofier and goofier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #144
160. Dershowitz was also against the SC decision -- and he favors torture ---
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 03:24 PM by defendandprotect
QUOTE; As far as the distinction between JFK's shoulder and his back, forgive me, but isn't the lower part of one's shoulder part of the back??? It certainly isn't the side or the front. Beyond that, are you claiming that the exit wound in his throat was actually an entrance wound and the small hole in his "shoulder" an exit wound? If you are, do you know what an exit wound looks like? If you aren't, was the bullet still in JFK? This just gets goofier and goofier.UNQUOTE

Now . . . look at what you have written there and begin to rethink it . . .
Yes . . . the shoulder is part of the BACK . . . in general.

But when you refer on an autopsy sheet to a shoulder wound that is exactly what you mean --
a shoulder wound. The wound was in the right shoulder. There is a full description of it on the copy of the doctor's autopsy report where the wounds are marked on a body form. And there is a full description of it as a shoulder wound.

From the rest of your comments it's obvious that you need to slow down and read again what I've said and what you are responding ...

Yes -- where have you been -- the wound in JFK's neck was an "entrance wound" as reported by the doctors who first treated JFK at Parkland Hospital. You should also try to look into some of the series which gives their testimony -- and there is a book written by at least one of the doctors who treated JFK at the hospital in Dallas that day. They were threatened.

Again -- the neck entrance wound is thought to have been made by a dart/bullet which might have delivered a paralyzing dose to JFK to keep him upright.

Again -- the wound in the BACK . . . was located in JFK'S RIGHT SHOULDER -- the measurements are given in the autopsy report.

AND, it was a wound of entrance, as well -- and it was at 45 DEGREE DOWNWARD ANGLE . . .

So -- there is no way that no matter how much you moved that wound it could possibly match up with the neck wound --


It's obvious you have done little reading on this --
there are lots of great books out there -- and lots of stuff on line --
If you really want to know about the JFK assassination you have to actually research it.

Here's a good place to start . . .
Interview with Madelaine Brown, LBJ's mistress as she lists the participants in the meeting
at Clint Murchinson's home the evening before the JFK coup --

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1929769365635576415




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #160
174. Please provide the name of any doctor at Parkland...
who believed the exit wound in the neck was an entrance wound.

Beyond that, your claims just keep getting goofier and goofier. If, as you claim, "the neck entrance wound is thought to have been made by a dart/bullet which might have delivered a paralyzing dose to JFK to keep him upright", why in the world would the shooter not just kill him outright? Beyond that, there was no bullet or "dart" recovered from JFK's body. Where did it go????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #174
199. They all believed it was an entrance wound -- !!!
Now . . . if you can't find your way to the information you're asking about here, my recommendation to you would be to find some other subject, cause you're not much good at this one.

But . . . to answer your question . . .
The requirement was to keep him sitting upright . . . so that if the first shot missed killing him that there would be another opportunity . . . basically the opportunity of triangulation.

OK -- Sherlock -- try this . . . the "bullet" might have been ice -- with poison in it.
On the other hand, the evidence of a "dart" or any other instrument may have been removed and evidence of it destroyed.

Push the gray matter -- you'll get there --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #199
208. This is getting laughable....
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 08:52 PM by SDuderstadt
You claim "they ALL believed it was an entrance wound", yet you can't name ANY of them, nor can you cite what any of them actually said to buttress YOUR claim. Then you, once more, try to make me prove YOUR claim. Do you see how silly this is becoming? Do you even know how debate works? YOU make a claim, YOU have the burden of proof. And, right now, you're failing miserably.

But, I'll play along for just a moment. Let's say some or even all of them thought it was an entrance wound, even though you have failed to establish that. Were they conducting an autopsy? No. They were frantically trying to save JFK's life, to no avail. Why was there any confusion at all, whether that be at Parkland or the subsequent autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital? Because, the doctors at Parkland, in trying to save Kennedy's life, widened the throat wound into a tracheotomy, thus making it more difficult to assess at either facility. But, even if all the doctors at Parkland believed it to be an entrance wound, what matters is the autopsy (not to mention that none of the doctors at Parkland were trained in any way in forensic pathology).

So, here are some more questions for you. If the throat wound was an entrance wound, are you claiming the small hole in JFK's back (or shoulder) is the exit wound??? If not, and you are claiming that JFK was hit both in the throat and the back (shoulder), what happened to the bullets???

Is there no end to your silliness?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #208
210. No . . . .
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 10:19 PM by defendandprotect
What I said to you is if you want to know, look up Dallas Parkland Hospital --
have you no familiarity with all of the info on the JFK assassination?

There are books by the doctors at the hospital -- I'll give you a lead . . . one starts with a "C" . ..

And, NO -- the bullet wound in the president's back -- in his RIGHT SHOULDER -- was an entrance wound.

Unfortunately, either you're playing games -- which I don't have time for --
or you're unwilling to do any work on your own -- so I don't have time for you there either.

good luck ---




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #210
211. Typical conspiracy theorist BS...
you make claims and then expect someone you're "debating" to prove YOUR claim. In, other words, you fail to prove your own claim, so you lose. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #137
153. For some reason, this second of the comments above didn't appear . . .
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 03:15 PM by defendandprotect

AND, by the John McCone/Dir-CIA memo confirming to the Secret Service that Oswald was trained by the CIA for spying assignments, including in Russia.]

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Octafish your so right on Poppy's unconcious just came
right out at that moment He still has to hide the fact Kennedy was assasinated by his own government and he hated the Kennedy's

The fact George is that History is going to be very harsh on your ruling days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
97. Once Poppy's gone, it's likely to come out..
somebody's conscience will get to them. Poppy was probably thinking thank god Gerry went before me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #97
154. So If Poppy Was Involved In JFK Assination Did Junior Have To Outdo Him and
give us 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
111. End punctuation is your friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
230. Indeed. And he also knows that once his sorry ass is gone, the TRUTH will come out.
That was one of the most bizarre speeches....EVER! Out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, he brings up the JFK assassination?:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Oh shit...Did Nancy Pelosi do THAT, too?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The Enduring JFK Mystery
Didn't know that Ms. Pelosi had taken a public position.

Ms. Pease is someone who does know a bit about the subject, though.



The Enduring JFK Mystery

By Lisa Pease
November 22, 2005

Editor’s Note: The assassination of John F. Kennedy was one of the darkest moments in modern American history. But one of its most pernicious legacies has been the notion that average Americans must be shielded from what really happens on matters of national security, even something as important as the murder of a president.

Since the Warren Commission probe of the JFK assassination, other investigations of serious government wrongdoing, one after another, have been truncated – CIA abuses, Iran-Contra, Contra drug trafficking, Iraq-gate, misuse of Iraq War intelligence, Abu Ghraib – supposedly because the full stories would undermine morale or otherwise not be “good for the country.”

Ultimately, of course, this loss of a true history is corrosive to the concept of a democratic republic, and it has been one of our goals as a publication to flesh out the facts of those failed investigations. In that light, we are publishing a report from JFK assassination expert Lisa Pease on a recent historical conference in Washington:


Forty-two years ago, on Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas, Texas. In Bethesda, Maryland, this past weekend, a group of distinguished journalists, historians, scientists and others gathered to discuss and debate the evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case.

While the research community has often slammed the mainstream media for not covering the facts of the case, the blame must go both ways. The conference organizers offered no handouts, no summaries of what is new in the case this year, or any hook upon which a journalist might hang a story.

As one of the reporters said in a panel discussion, this is a story without an ending, and how satisfying is that?

But that is a tragedy, in light of the Downing Street Memo and other evidence that the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq was built on a false platform. The common thread throughout the weekend was that secrecy and democracy cannot safely coexist, that the more we have of the former, the less we have of the latter.

The credentials of the speakers this year was more impressive than in previous conferences. Featured speakers included former presidential candidate Gary Hart, author James Bamford, journalists Jeff Morley and Salon founder David Talbot, and historians David Wrone and John Newman (who was a military intelligence analyst), and the former head of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, G. Robert Blakey.

SNIP...

CIA Obstacles

Blakey spoke specifically about George Joannides, a CIA psychological warfare expert and the focus of several of Jeff Morley’s articles about the case. Joannides had been in charge of the anti-Castro Cuban student organization known as the DRE.

Carlos Bringuier of the DRE fought verbally with Oswald in the streets of Miami, which led to the arrest of Oswald just weeks before the assassination, and later put Oswald on the air in a DRE-sponsored program in which Oswald said he was a Marxist.

During the House investigation, Blakey assigned two of his young law school student assistants, Edward Lopez and Dan Hardway, to the CIA. They were set up in an office at CIA and given great freedom to request documents.

The Agency was forced to comply. But when Lopez and Hardway started pressing for more of the DRE documents, Joannides, who had been brought back from retirement to oversee the investigation, went to Blakey and complained that Lopez and Hardway were too aggressive, that they were pushing too hard.

Blakey said at the time, he believed the CIA. Now he wished he had backed up Lopez and Hardway.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/112205a.html



Aren't you interested in discovering the truth behind the assassination of President Kennedy?

I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slowry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. From what I understand, the files can be held until 2017 -- and even then, longer:
(D) Each assassination record shall be publicly disclosed in full, and available in the Collection no later than the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of this Act, unless the President certifies, as required by this Act, that--

(i) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and

(ii) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.


From http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102EI5bsX:e730:">here

So, yeah... good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
63. Thank you, slowry. I didn't know the particulars. Here's a bit on George Joannides...
From our friends at JFKLancer...



The George Joannides Coverup

by Jefferson Morley
JFKLancer.com
May 19, 2005

People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release of certain JFK assassination-related documents.

The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.

Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States. CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31 July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.

Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its public statements with the Agency.

What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders of the DRE are divided on the question.

Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways, thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides told the group to take their information to the FBI.

Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the Warren Commission.

In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides died in 1991.


I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will not release IN ANY FORM.

Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of "national security."

The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive
operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these operations is unknown.

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/morley.html



Perhaps we will see the day...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slowry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Thanks for the reply, Octafish; your posts always make for fascinating reading.
No foul intended, by the way, when I sarcastically wrote "good luck with that" -- it just frustrates me to see such blatant stonewalling. Most people seem to believe all, or even most, of the relevant information regarding these events has been released.

The 1992 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.03006:">JFK Records Act seems more like the proverbial bone thrown to the dog, than anything substantial. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it appears they have 10 years to sit on whatever they like, after which they are under no real obligation to release anything they don't want to...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #63
124. Plame/Johannides
Plame's identification was leaked. Johannides' information is being withheld. Bush's world is so strange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. With all due respect to the OP and Lisa Pease...
Read Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History:The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy". There is no credible evidence whatsoever that the CIA was involved in JFK's assassination. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yeah
sure.

Bugliosi's success in prosecuting Manson and crew doesn't mean squat when it comes to the CIA.

Read Brothers by David Talbot. RFK went to his death having more trust in the Russians than in our CIA, FBI and military -- all wingnuts who wanted to wage war, any war. The enemy within indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I HAVE read "Brothers"....Have you read Bugliosi's book?
If anyone has evidence of CIA involvement, they should come forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
56. You're joking right? They did and many were murdered.
If there's no conspiracy then what in the world are they hiding?

The reality is they are hiding the truth.

Which means they've been lying to us the American citizenry.

Dont you as an American want to know.

How does remaining in the dark on the facts benefit you and/or empower you?

Denial benefits no one and makes everyone a victim in the long run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #56
73. I am absolutely NOT joking
First of all, how do you know they are "hiding something"? Because Lisa Pease says so? Did you do any independent research at all? In Logic, automatically believing something because it appears in print is called "false certainty". The antidote to to try to confirm/disconfirm.

Sure, as an American, I "want to know". I collected a large number of JFK conspiracy books over the years and actually tended to believe many of them. Then I started to notice the inconsistencies and downright contradictions. I also took my own counsel and started researching extensively and, guess what? The conspiracy theories begin to fall apart using simple Logic. For example, how do we know that there was no one shooting at Kennedy from the grassy knoll? Because, if they had, there would be bullet fragments and damage in the left hemisphere of his brain. There were none.

Exactly what facts am I "in the dark on"? Maybe it's the other way around. Are you open-minded? I'm not in denial of anything. Are you?

Lastly, as to your point that "many did (come forward) and were murdered", do you have any evidence of that at all? Are you referring to all the supposedly "mysterious deaths" of alleged key players surrounding the JFK assassination? I hate to tell you, but that is simply another conspiracy theory myth, albeit a quite durable one. Just like the really silly "Clinton Body Count List". Same goofball thinking. For example, everyone was wowed by the supposedly steep odds of that many deaths happening, until you look at it more closely. Instead of astronomical odds, the odds were actually 1 : 1.5, in other words, not that unlikely.

The list originated with Penn Jones and has been picked up and further exaggerated by others over the years. However, many people on the list died many years later of natural causes with no suspicious circumstances, yet they are included on the list. Others on the list died AFTER they had already told their story, which is how we know about them to begin with. How much sense does it make to bump someone off after they've already squealed, rather than before they can do damage?

For example, what was so unusual about Roy Kellerman (Secret Service agent) dying of a heart attack 21 years after the assassination in 1984? Are you claiming the CIA did away with him? If so, where is your evidence????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #73
143. So a new guy like you to DU just says it ain't so and prove it! Well the CIA will not release any
records since they have something to cover up if not then why hold back! All information from spies operating in the 1960's is very old news and most of them have passed on from this life now there is no reason to with hold those documents unless they are hiding something that will make them look bad!

If you want to believe it was just a lone nut that managed to kill JFK with three shots in Dallas that day that is fine but others can see through the BS JFK was shot in the back the neck and the head also Connelly was shot one bullet missed the car entirely hit a curb wounding one person and the windshield had a bullet crack the windshield frame had another bullet hit it is impossible to believe a rifle man that according to marine corps buddies, could not shoot worth a dam, did all that! Add to that the guy running the investigation for the Warren Commission was Allen Dulles, the same Allen Dulles fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs mess makes it pretty convenient to cover up any involvement by the CIA!



http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/fbi1.BMP
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/fbi2.BMP
These documents prove that only TWO shell casings and ONE LIVE round were obtained. The Warren Commission changed the number of spent casings to three and left out the live round.
It is also important to note that Specter invented the single bullet theory ONLY AFTER the Warren Commission could no longer ignore the testimony of James Tague. Before that, they had three hits (Kennedy back, Kennedy head and Connelly). Now, the logical and responsible investigative approach when you have to account for an extra miss and explain all those wounds with just two bullets, is to go and look for more shots and thus more gunmen. Instead they desperately clung to their "lone nut" and concocted the pristine magic bullet, accounting for all wounds of BOTH JFK and Connelly.




Apparently You need to learn more about the BFEE! Do a search here and you will learn a lot about the people that run this country by running it into the ground for their profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #143
162. I have never understood why....
a JFK conspiracy theorist believes that citing more conspiracy theory proves the conspiracy theory. Maybe you need to read Bugliosi's book and question your own beliefs. Or, it is just to easy to blame the BFEE?

BTW, what does the length of time I have posted here have to do with whether I know what I am talking about???? This just keeps getting goofier and goofier!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #143
184. Allen Dulles was....
a member of the Commission. He didn't "run the investigation". Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #184
213. Dulles was the only WC member to attend all the meetings.
That was what Earl Warren said.

And Dulles was fired by President Kennedy.

And more than a few of his former colleages at the CIA are suspects in the assassination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #213
214. So what?
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 11:48 PM by SDuderstadt
Even if he attended all the meetings, so what? In your mind, what does that establish? Do you know how the WC worked? Do you think the commissioners did all the legwork or was that done by staffers? Are you claiming that Dulles got to the staffers and they were "in on it" too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #214
218. Hoover hated the Kennedys. Dulles was a guy who did business with NAZIs.
Dulles sure acted like he hated the Kennedys. And Hoover sure acted like a NAZI.

Know your BFEE: Corrupt Craftsmen Hoover and Dulles

What else do you need to know?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #218
223. If this is your reasoning process....
Edited on Sat Oct-27-07 01:56 PM by SDuderstadt
you'd struggle as a detective. What else do I "need" to know? Lots of public figures have multiple enemies. If a public figure is assassinated, does that mean we can simply find the person that hated him/her most and we've got the killer? Or should we just look for the most obvious case of cui bono (who benefited?). Or, maybe we could use the Garrison principle of propinquity (geographic proximity) and just look for anyone who happened to be in Dallas that day. BTW, that reminds me of a "debate" I had with a freeper once when Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of rape in Little Rock. I believe that Clinton was, at that time, Attorney General and was running for governor. The freeper stated that since Clinton was a candidate for office that we could simply go to the calendar and see if he was in Little Rock that day, in which case, "it would prove that he raped her". Given that Clinton's office was in Little Rock, that reminds me of the scene in "The Usual Suspects", when the cop says to Kevin Pollack, "We can place you in Queens on the day of the robbery", to which Pollack replies matter-of factly and with feigned surprise, "Really!?!.....I LIVE in Queens."

My point is that it takes big picture thinking to solve complicated crimes. But, the fact that Ruby killed Oswald within just a couple of days after the assassination robbed all of us of the comfort of figuring out exactly what happened. It also spawned an unbelievable assortment of conspiracy theories, most of which can be dismissed by using basic logic. For example, we KNOW that JFK could not have been shot from the grassy knoll because, if he had, he would have had damage to, and bullet fragments in, the left hemisphere of his brain. He didn't; the damage and bullet fragments were entirely within the right hemisphere of his brain.

I have had exchanges here with others in which it was claimed that the wound to JFK's throat was some sort of dart or bullet intended to "paralyze him" so that he would be sitting bolt upright for the fatal head shot. Okay. But, we know the throat wound was an exit wound and was confirmed as such in the autopsy. But, let's say we didn't. How else would we know? Well, using logic again, we would ask a couple of questions. Was it necessary to "paralyze Kennedy" to keep him upright? No. Anyone who knows much about JFK also knows that he had a very bad back and wore a very stiff back brace every day that he had to lace himself into. That's why he didn't slump over like Connally did. Secondly, we know that if he was shot in the throat from the front, that's impossible, unless one can shoot through a windshield totally undetected.

Or, if the "shooter" was in an elevated position in front of the limousine, why did no one see him? Where was he shooting from? That leaves the possibility of a "shooter" from either side, but falls in the face of yet, one more logical question. If someone was positioned thusly, why not just deliver the fatal head shot from there? Why make it even more difficult by relying on the shot from behind which had no certainty of being accurate? See my point? If you had a shot at JFK from the front or the side, why would you screw around with a paralyzing dart when you could just KILL him? When I confronted the person who made this allegation with the question of where the supposed dart/bullet went, the retort was that it was probably an "ice dart". Can this get any sillier?

For the record, I was 12 when JFK was assassinated. He remains, to this day, one of my heroes and I quote from his speech, "Why I am a liberal" all the time. Over the years, I collected conspiracy book after conspiracy book. I know why people cling to conspiracy theories in their attempt to make sense of something that often just does not make sense. I don't begrudge someone who clings to these conspiracy theories, as I know that each new book I got, whether it was James Marrs or Mark Lane or John Newman, left me with a possible new understanding of something I did not understand. However, along the way, I also became a skeptic (and I don't mean just in relationship to the JFK conspiracy theory) and delved even deeper into critical thinking, reading books like "How We Know What Isn't So" and "Why People Believe Weird Things".

Which brings us to present day. So what if both Hoover and Dulles "hated Kennedy" (by the way, the evidence is much more that Hoover hated RFK and merely disliked or "tolerated" Kennedy)? But, even if he did, so what? You need FAR more than that to show that either one killed or had Kennedy killed. And, despite the tone of my response (stripped of inflection since it's not verbal and devoid of visual cues), I welcome debate from fellow liberals/progressives (or anyone else, for that matter)if certain ground rules are observed. The debate should respect people for who they are and for having a natural right to respectfully disagree and I try to approach it from that viewpoint. But, when my liberal bonafides are attacked (I'll put them up against anyone), when I am attacked for merely asking someone for proof of their claim since they demand the same of me, or when it is claimed that I have to be a paid GOP operative (I've been a dem since I could first vote for McGovern) or that I "must be blind" or that I am a "dolt" or somehow the conspirators somehow "got to me", I don't know how a debate can proceed.

That is, I think, the biggest problem with the JFK conspiracy movement. In my opinion, it is filled with false certainty (just because someone read something somewhere does not make it true), incredible confirmation bias and a condescending and demeaning attitude toward those who ask excellent questions. If you know of someplace where honest debate is held, I'd be glad to join it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #223
228. Poppy Bush was in Dallas on 22 November 1963. Why?
At least that's what he told the FBI.

In the hour of the death of President John F. Kennedy, ostensible Texas oilman George Herbert Walker Bush named a suspect to the FBI in a "confidential" phone call. He then added he was heading for Dallas. Skeptics need not take my word for it, that's what Poppy told the FBI:



Here's a transcript of the text:



TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #




Gee. Why was Poppy Bush in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

Could it be, he was on official business? I suspect he was on Secret Government business. After all, his eldest son bragged during his Texas Air National Guard and Harvard grad school days that his daddy was CIA.

Here's an FBI document from the same week of the assassination in which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." Some strange coincidence there, wot?



Here's a transcript of the above:



Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



I do remember that GHWB was head of the CIA when the Church Committee was looking into the CIA assassination programs. He made things all friendly-like and turned what had been a serious hunt for truth under previous DCI Colby into another dog-and-pony show that was big on show and light on facts.

Recent evidence shows Bush was CIA earlier than he admitted:



Bush Senior Early CIA Ties Revealed

By Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen
The Real News Project January 8, 2007

NEW YORK--Newly released internal CIA documents assert that former president George Herbert Walker Bush's oil company emerged from a 1950's collaboration with a covert CIA officer.

Bush has long denied allegations that he had connections to the intelligence community prior to 1976, when he became Central Intelligence Agency director under President Gerald Ford. At the time, he described his appointment as a 'real shocker.'

But the freshly uncovered memos contend that Bush maintained a close personal and business relationship for decades with a CIA staff employee who, according to those CIA documents, was instrumental in the establishment of Bush's oil venture, Zapata, in the early 1950s, and who would later accompany Bush to Vietnam as a “cleared and witting commercial asset” of the agency.

According to a CIA internal memo dated November 29, 1975, Bush's original oil company, Zapata Petroleum, began in 1953 through joint efforts with Thomas J. Devine, a CIA staffer who had resigned his agency position that same year to go into private business. The '75 memo describes Devine as an “oil wild-catting associate of Mr. Bush.” The memo is attached to an earlier memo written in 1968, which lays out how Devine resumed work for the secret agency under commercial cover beginning in 1963.

“Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil,” the memo reads. In fact, early Zapata corporate filings do not seem to reflect Devine's role in the company, suggesting that it may have been covert. Yet other documents do show Thomas Devine on the board of an affiliated Bush company, Zapata Offshore, in January, 1965, more than a year after he had resumed work for the spy agency.

CONTINUED...

http://realnews.org/rn/content/zapata.html



Now I don't know if Poppy was a trigger man, was only there to watch what happened or what just happened to be there. I do know Poppy Bush has never explained these memos. He's never even admitted where he was the day JFK was killed.

Seeing how he would go on to become President, as would his dim son, I believe it's vitally important that we learn the Truth.

Why? The United States and the world haven't been the same since November 22, 1963. And not a single major player in the nation's mass media have stepped up and demanded a real investigation. So, the detective work is up to us, We the People.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #228
231. You just did it again...
Edited on Sat Oct-27-07 08:31 PM by SDuderstadt
Unbelievable. I just got done addressing the silliness of the propinquity principle (proximity equals guilt) and you cite it in the case of Bush, Sr. And, in fact, your own source (the Kitchel memo ) contradicts your claim. Did you bother to read it? Did you read what I wrote in my earlier post? You must not have, because you write, "Now I don't know if Poppy was a trigger man, was only there to watch what happened or what just happened to be there".

Assuming the Kitchel memo is authentic (I'm not claiming it isn't), what do we know from it? First, from the transcript, "At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas". Where does it say that Bush was IN Dallas when JFK was assassinated? Hint: It doesn't. It says that he is calling LONG DISTANCE from Tyler, Texas and the time of the call is AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN minutes AFTER the assassination. Consult MapQuest and you'll find that Tyler is nearly 100 miles from Dallas and roughly about an hour and 40 minute drive and that's calculated from city center to city center, not even door-to-door. So, assuming Bush was actually in Tyler at the time of the call (I don't know if Kitchel concluded that on his own - for example, confirming the call originated from Tyler - or that's what Bush merely told him and Kitchel accepted it at face value), the earliest he could have been in Dallas would have been around 3:30 PM, some 3 hours after the assasination.

So, back to your point about not knowing whether Bush was a "trigger man" (absurd speculation) or was only there to watch what happened or just happened to be there (your own source says he WASN'T there, if you'd bother to read it), if Bush WAS headed to Dallas, what in the world would be so unusual about that? Would it be unusual that a Houston oilman would be headed to another Texas oil city? Your logic, insofar as I can tell, appears to be as follows:

JFK was assassinated in Dallas, Texas at 12:30 PM, November 22, 1963.
George H.W. Bush was headed to Dallas and could possibly have been there three hours AFTER the assassination, therefore,
George H.W. Bush must have either killed JFK or had him killed.

Is there no end to your silliness? Seriously.

Further, think this through. If you were Bush and you actually HAD done any of the foregoing, would you be headed TOWARDS or AWAY from the scene of the crime? Would you try to draw attention TO yourself or would you AVOID doing so. Are we supposed to believe he would call up and give the FBI his phone number and address in case they wanted to arrest him? While it is certainly true that we can not rule out the possibility that Bush was creating some sort of pretext, a much stronger case can be made that we have NO evidence of his involvement OTHER than he was a resident of Texas who was nearby. As were millions of other people. BTW, where were YOU on that day and how do we know YOU didn't do it?


As to your claim that no major media player has stepped up and demanded a "real investigation", could you please define what a real investigation would consist of. Are you claiming that neither the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commision nor the HSCA were real investigations? Again, is there no end to your silliness?

P.S. I despise George H.W. Bush only slightly less than I despise his idiot son.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #231
234. I want to know why Poppy Bush was in Dallas on 22 Nov 1963.
Don't misrepresent my post. If you want to support investigations that were flawed in concept, execution and recommendations, fine. Start your own thread. This one isn't about putting down other people, myself, or even you, SDuderstadt. It is about getting to the Truth.

As to speculation about the Bush Crime Family: Certainly the fact that a man who would become president and and start unnecessary wars of agression against Panama and Iraq -- wars in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people lost their lives -- and then a son would "rise" to become commander-in-chief and lie America into illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps soon, Iran, -- wars in which as many as 1.2 million innocent people have lost their lives -- it would be safe to assume they would not shed a tear over the death of one man, especially a Liberal Democrat. Why some would give such rightwing Big Oil NAZI Wall Street military-industrial-intelligence-mafia CIA gangster warmongers the benefit of the doubt is beyond my understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-28-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #234
235. Kinda interesting how you sidestepped the question of why your source contradicted your claim...
Edited on Sun Oct-28-07 12:31 AM by SDuderstadt
I've noticed that when you get called on something specific, you just change the subject. It is certainly valid to ask what Bush was doing there, but:

1) Again, your source contradicts your claim that Bush was there DURING the assassination.

2) You've failed to explain why it would be unusual for Bush to go to Dallas. Supposed we looked at his calendar and found out he visited Dallas 25 times within the course of 1963, one of which happened to be 12/22/63. Would you claim the other 24 visits were suspicious too? Here's an interesting question: How many people do you have to get into a room to produce a 50/50 chance that at least two share a 'coincident birthday" (defined as same day of the same month but does not have to be the same year to be a hit)? 200? 150? 75? Ready? It's 23. I'm willing to bet you're pretty surprised by that and I would be glad to furnish the mathematical proof. The moral, of course, is that our minds often play tricks on us and things that seem totally outside the bounds of chance happen all the time.

3) As stated previously, I certainly have no problem with your wanting to know where Bush was that day and why he was in Dallas, as those are perfectly rational and reasonable questions. However, you're being disingenuous when you frame it that way, because in your past posts, you are vitually presenting it as Bush is automatically guilty. If you have any evidence of guilt on his part, please present it. I'd be delighted as I despise him.

4) If you understood much about probability, you'd realize that there's nothing all that unusual about Bush being there (albeit later) on the same day that Kennedy was. The problem is that you are thinking about it the wrong way (a good book to read on the subject would be "Fooled by Randomness") and you are imputing undue significance to an event which can easily be explained by coincidence. For example, remember all the uncanny coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy? Sounds pretty eerie, right? The only problem is you can easily derive a similar list between JFK and President Manuel Obregon of Mexico, who was, like JFK, also assassinated. Maybe we should launch an "real investigation" of that too.

5) My guess is that your assertions go pretty much unchallenged among your fellow CT's and you're uncomfortable with someone like myself challenging you so strongly with facts and logic, even though I am also a liberal. For me it's hard to ignore all the easily debunked/disproven JFK assassination myths recycled by the CT's. It's also hard for me to imagine why the CT's aren't interested in information/evidence that debunks their beliefs. Why is that? Don't they have confidence in their knowledge and the ability to produce the evidence that proves their claims easily? I'm very interested in friendly yet spirited debate on the subject anytime. Who knows? We both might learn something. BTW, I am open to the possibility I am wrong on a number of things and will easily admit so if shown conclusive evidence. But CT's dismissing perfectly valid evidence simply on the grounds that "the government lies about everything" or refusing to present evidence of their claims on the grounds that "everyone knows we're right" just doesn't fly. If your claims are sound, you should have no problem with an extended debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-28-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #235
236. I asked why Poppy was there on the DAY of the assassination.
You said I wrote something else.

As for not answering your questions, get a tutor. That's not my job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-28-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #236
239. Wrong again....
Here are your own words. "Gee. Why was Poppy Bush in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?". Not, "Why was Poppy Bush THERE ON THE SAME DAY?". Maybe you have a problem with temporization.

You also said the following in a previous post in the thread: "Now I don't know if Poppy was a trigger man, was only there to watch what happened or what just happened to be there". Then you have the audacity to accuse me of putting words in your mouth when I didn't. You said them. Maybe you don't remember what you said. The real irony here is you have to lie about me in order to accuse me of lying about you. Unbelievable.

The real hoot is when you write, "As for not answering your questions, get a tutor. That's not my job". Are you serious? Or, is it simply you can't answer the questions at all, thus you avoid a debate. How silly is it to expect the other side to prove YOUR claim (also known as "trying to shift the burden of proof"). Again, you're employing typical CT tactics. Change the subject, attempt to shift the burden of proof back to your opponent, anything to wriggle out of answering straightforward, logical questions that expose the really sloppy thinking of CT's. Oh, by the way, I GOT a tutor! She was trying to explain how there's really no evidence for your claims, but she couldn't stop laughing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
106. I would tenetively withhold judgement
Until all pertinent documents are released to the public.

However we shouldn't pretend that the operations arm of CIA activities and Team B are somehow completely innocent.

How many foreign governments have they aided in overthrowing at the behest of the state department?

Did they not collaborate with the mob in opposing Castro?

Didn't the Team B analysts brought in to increase the Pro cold war drumbeat create fictional and fanciful exaggerationgs of Soviet military readiness after WWII?

Wasn't Allen Dulles a future head of the CIA involved in 'papercliping' away Ghelen's org from Nazi Germany and attempt to use his 'intelligence' (most of it misinformation) on the soviets?

You may be close to the truth with regard to JFK, but let us not make the CIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #106
112. Surely, the whole panoply of state were involved, including doubtless
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 12:08 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
many, who were intimidated into complicity in the risible attempt at a cover-up, (some tyros in the medical profession, for example, who were called in when there was an leading expert in gunshot traumas close at hand, waiting by the phone, expecting to be called at any moment).

One witness, to the conpsiracy - albeit not herself a player - who was enormously convincing, was Johnson's secretary. She knew all the big oil players who were friends of Johnson - the whole coterie, I think even Cubans and mafiosi involved, though I can't remember that for sure. Moreover, you only have to look at the photograph of the officials surrounding Jackie Kennedy, to know that they were deeply ashamed in her presence about what they knew had happened. In all, she must have talked for about 20 minutes ot half an hour, naming so mnay names. Johnson had come out of a meeting with some of them, and said to her something like, "That bastard won't be troubling me any more!"

It reminds me of a TV news clip of Blair alighting from a plane after it had been publicised that Dr Kelly had been found dead. He looked stricken. A unique occurrence despite all that his regime was responsible for. I don't think it was because he thought Dr Kelly had been hounded to death by suicide, but something much worse he had knowledge of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #112
170. One of the long lists of those involved comes from LBJ's mistress . . .

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1929769365635576415

Of course, that isn't a complete list, either --
you still have to consider the guys at the lower levels who fanned out to keep the cover-ups going.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Right.
Not buying it sorry.

He's had a bug up his ass about this topic for as long as I've known about him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. This is hysterical....
Of course, you've not read Bugliosi's book....you just KNOW he's not credible, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
98. I've read his other shit...so NO he's not credible...
...next bloody stupid comment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #98
121. Then tell us...
why Bugliosi is not credible. Be specific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. As previously stated...he's had a bug up his ass about this topic for years now...
...he has a specific opinion, and chooses the facts that support them...typical of a prosecutor..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #123
128. Can't you do any better than...
keep repeating that Bugliosi "has a bug up his ass about the assassination"? Couldn't one says that you do, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #128
139. Nice...
..:eyes:

You have obviously decided that Buggy is right...and the rest of us knows he's wrong...

I'm fine with that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #139
156. If the rest of you....
know that he is wrong, then it shouldn't be so hard for you to provide definitive proof of your alternate hypothesis. What, exactly, is it? What proof do you have of it? Citing the works on conspiracy theorists who can't even get basic facts right is not convincing. Belief is not knowledge. Knowledge is factual and can be proven to be so.

In fact, why don't we start with someone factual beyond dispute. Have you even read his book? If you have, then it shouldn't be so hard for you to go beyond generalities. If you haven't (which is my guess), how in the world do you have a basis to take issue with him on any statement of fact or claim based upon evidence????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. He also claims not to know that Oswald worked for the CIA
or at least he did in a Pacifica interview I heard with him back when his book came out. However, many people believe otherwise:

James B. Wilcott, a former CIA accountant, swore in a secret session of the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he was told by other CIA employees that Lee Harvey Oswald was paid by the CIA, and that money he himself had disbursed was for "Oswald or the Oswald project."

Link: http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Wilcott/Wilcott.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. This just gets goofier and goofier....
I thought what you posted was interesting, to say the least, so I wanted to know more about where it came from. I truncated the url back to http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee and this is the intro:


"JFK researcher John Armstrong has shown that the Warren Commission combined the biographies of two different people to arrive at the classic legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. One was a Russian speaking youth, possibly the child of Hungarian parents. Mr. Armstrong notes that this person preferred to be called "Harvey." The other was a taller but similar looking boy with a Southern U.S. accent, born as "Lee Harvey Oswald," and who preferred to be called "Lee." Both youths became entangled at an early age in an American intelligence operation designed to give a U.S. identity to a Russian-speaking child. It was "Harvey" who traveled to Russia and was shot dead by Jack Ruby. It was "Lee" who framed "Harvey" for the assassination of JFK. The operation began when both "Harvey" and "Lee" were CHILDREN, but it probably did not become entangled in the plot to assassinate President Kennedy until the spring and summer of 1963."

So, let me make sure I get this straight. It all actually began when Lee Harvey Oswald and his russian-speaking "double" were just children? So, the plotters knew that Kennedy would become president in 1961 when Oswald was still a child? And they knew that they needed to find a double for Oswald so he could be framed? Could this be any goofier? Not to mention that Oswald's body was exhumed and the fingerprints confirmed to be that of Oswald through his military and other records.

Beyond that, if you read the excerpt of Wilcott's testimony, it's not very credible, for a number of reasons. I'll cite just several, to begin:

First of all, there are larger numbers of people who testified to the opposite of what Wilcott claimed. While it is true that just because more people testified differently does not, in and of itself, establish the opposite as true, it does go in that direction.

Secondly, Wilcott's testimony comes 15 years AFTER the assassination. As we all know, recollection becomes LESS vivid with the passage of time, not more vivid. Setting that aside for a moment, Wilcott does not even have direct knowledge of Oswald having supposedly worked for the CIA and even refers to his testimony as "hearsay". When he is first questioned about who supposedly told him about Oswald being employed by the C.I.A., he can't even recall a specific name until he is prompted by the HSCA counsel, even then he is tentative. If you read his entire testimony through, he even contradicts himself in several places.

Neither Armstrong nor Wilcott, for that matter, provide any documentary evidence or any smoking guns. By way of comparison, the Warren Commission, Gerald Posner, Failure Analysis Associates, Vincent Bugliosi and others provide convincing evidence in the other direction. As hard as it is to believe, Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. The world has never been the same since and "Who killed JFK?" has become a cottage industry that has taken on a life of its own. But, one thing we know is that the C.I.A. (or the Cubans, Mafia or LBJ) killed Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
58. Your last sentence comes pretty close to the truth,
though perhaps inadvertently: "But, one thing we know is that the C.I.A. (or the Cubans, Mafia or LBJ) killed Kennedy." LBJ and the CIA were absolutely involved; anti-Castro Cubans and/or Mafia shooters may have been employed although, as many allege, although my suspicion is that they were probably back-up patsies.

In any case, Wilcott's testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations is pretty explicit:

Mr. Goldsmith. And, Mr. Wilcott, is it true that you are a former employee with the CIA and that you are here today testifying voluntarily without a subpoena?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. During what years did you work for the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. I worked from the years, May, of 1957 to, April, of 1966.

Mr. Goldsmith. And in what general capacity did you work with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. All in the finance--in accounting all of the time.

{. . . .}

Mr. Goldsmith. Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did.

Mr. Goldsmith. And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was?

Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.

Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent?"

Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.






etc. More at link: http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Wilcott/Wilcott.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #58
74. Actually, the last sentence was a typo....
It should have read that the entities named did NOT kill Kennedy.

Additionally, you can post Wilcott's testimony as much as you want, but it doesn't negate the fact that he had NO direct knowledge of Oswald's supposed CIA employment (hint: that's why he answered, "Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency."). In other words, he did not know from his own knowledge or evidence/documentation and he SAYS so, if you read all of his testimony. If you want to be convincing, cite someone's testimony who had direct knowledge and not someone who says that's what people told him. Hearsay has little to no evidentiary value, except to conspiracy theorists. In their world, every anomaly or unanswered question proves the conspiracy theory. Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. The point is that Bugliosi feigned ignorance of Oswald's CIA connections.
Whatever the status of the allegations, they're rather widely known, and Wilcott's House Select Committee testimony is not their only source. So either Bugie didn't do his homework or he deliberately omitted evidence he should have considered, as prosecutors often do when they're trying to make a case. Makes me wonder about the Manson verdict frankly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. If Wilcott is not the only source...
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 01:27 AM by SDuderstadt
then name some...

Beyond that, it's silly to claim that Bugliosi "feigned ignorance" of Oswald's supposed CIA connections when he goes to great lengths to disprove them and does a convincing job of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #78
79. Here's a page with 54,000 links on the subject:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. Nice try...
I'm not doing your work for you. Your response is like your being asked by your history teacher to write an essay on Nazi Germany, then you checking out every book you can find on the topic and dumping it on the teacher's desk. What possible proof of anything is the number of hits a google search reveals? Does that prove the allegation? Have you ever heard of "false certainty"? That's believing something merely because it appears in print. Ironically, the first hit is a link to rense.com. Do you think rense is a credible source? Where is the smoking gun? Where is the documentary evidence that Oswald was employed in ANY capacity by the CIA? Supposition and baseless speculation, no matter how titillating, proves absolutely nothing. Please, no more wild goose chases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. Fine, let Bugie send you off to dreamland.
Lots of people are perfectly happy believing in fairy tales and there's not much more I can say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. Well, then....
believe all the fairy tales you want, because you obviously have zero evidence for your claim...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #77
173. Here's the John McCone/Dir-CIA memo confirming Oswald was CIA ---
March 3, 1964

From John McCone, Director of the CIA
to James J. Rowley, Chief, US Secret Service

Paragraphs four and five . . ..

Oswald subject was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence,
for Soviet assignments. During preliminary training, in 1957, subject was active in aerial reconnaissance of mainland China and maintained a security clearance up to the "confidential" level. His military records during that period are open to your agency and I have directed they be forward to the Commission.

"Subject received additional indoctrination at own own ** ** site from September 8 to October 17, 1958, and participated in a few relatively minor assignments until arrangements were made for his entry into the Soviet Union in September 1959. While in the Soviet Union, he was on special assignment in the area of Minsk. It would not be advantageous at this time to divulge the specifics of that assignment; however, if you wish this information, it can . . ."

End of page 1

** Two words are missing . . . . four to five letters each --
Beginning with a "C" and with a "P" .... rest unclear.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/160904oswaldwascia.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #74
114. "Actually, the last sentence was a typo", is one of the funniest
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 12:37 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
and most brazenly fatuous, attempted rebuttals I think anyone of us would ever have come across or are ever likely to. It's called a Freudian slip! It wasn't a misspelt word.

Even the Italian manufacturers of the gun Oswald used, stated that their tests proved conclusively that it could not have done the job. Wasn't up to it. You live in a fantasy world, a twilit world, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #114
120. Brazenly fatuous?
typographical error

(typo) An error while inputting text via keyboard, made despite the fact that the user knows exactly what to type in. This usually results from the operator's inexperience at keyboarding, rushing, not paying attention, or carelessness. (In other words, it refers to more than just misspellings)

It certainly wasn't a freudian slip. BTW, do you have ANY proof that any of those entities killed Kennedy? Care to share it? Hint: supposition and speculation do not amount to proof.

As far as your claim that the manufacturers of the Mannlicher Carcano rifle "stated that their tests proved conclusively that it could not have done the job", do you have any evidence of that, or are you just blowing smoke? If you find it, please also provide it to the HSCA and Ronald Simmons of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Department of the Army, both of whom tested the rifle and found it to be more than accurate (equivalent to an M-14). You might also want to forward said evidence to the Italian NATO Rifle Team who, at the time of the assassination, was still using the same rifle in competitions. Additionally, it's beyond silly to claim that the rifle wasn't accurate within the range of 50 yards (when Kennedy was hit in the back) to 66 yards (the headshot)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. Sorry to burst your bubble but the rifle was a piece of shit...and Oswald was a crappy shot...
..Oh, and he hadn't fired a gun that day either..

But you keep on believing he pulled off the impossible and I'll keep waiting for the fat guy in the red suit to come down my chimney...m'kay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #125
133. Wrong on each count....
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 01:47 PM by SDuderstadt
The rifle was tested by various entities (the HSCA and the Infantry Weapons Branch of the department of the Navy) and found to be more than accurate, especially within the range employed (50 to 66 yards). Parrafin tests conducted upon Oswald showed that he had, in fact, fired a gun that day. During his service in the marines, on 12/21/56 Oswald shot a 212 out of 250, which qualified him as a "sharpshooter". In his last test on 5/9/59, he scored a 191 out of 250, which still qualified him as a marksman.

If you have any evidence (beyond mere speculation and/or supposition), please provide it. Oh, and you might want to leave out the insults. You might have noticed that I have yet to insult you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #133
140. You keep believing your fairy tales..
..and I'll keep following the evidence...

Out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #140
157. And you know that I rely on fairly tales...
and you have the "evidence" how, exactly? And if, as you claim, you have the "evidence", why do you seem to have such a hard time providing it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #133
175. Whoa . . . the tests on Oswald showed that he had NOT fired a gun that day ---

Additionally, the "rifle was tested" . . . after it was repaired.
It couldn't be fired or tested until then!!!

Oswald was ONI -- and worked for the CIA -- trained by CIA as outlined by John McCone and sent on assignment to Russia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #175
178. Please provide a source for your claim that...
Oswald tested negative.

I have also looked at that "memo" by John McCone. Do you notice anything fishy about it? It is supposedly a three page memo, yet we see only the first page. No signature by McCone that could be verified. How do you know it is even legit????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #178
179. Probably because on other pages he was discussing recipes . . .
which works for those trying not to get the message of the first page -- !!!

IF I happen to come across the info on Oswald again l'll be happy to give you a link --

And, in the meantime, you may look for the information on your own, of course . . . !!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #179
181. What a copout....
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 08:00 PM by SDuderstadt
you make a claim, then fold when you are challenged for proof...It's not MY job to prove YOUR claim. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #181
205. It's not his job either, you mutt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-28-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #175
240. Absolutely wrong again
Edited on Sun Oct-28-07 02:09 PM by SDuderstadt
I don't know where you're getting/reading this, but it's a fountain of misinformation. While it is true that the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek was negative for having fired a gun that day, paraffin tests on BOTH hands were positive. Further, the case against Oswald hardly rested on this test. Beyond that, even two of the goofier CT's (Mark Lane and Jim Marrs) outright acknowledge that the hands tested positive:


'Mark Lane makes a similar assertion in Rush to Judgment, p. 149:
A positive response on both hands and a negative response on the face is consistent with innocence. It is also consistent with Oswald's claim that he had not fired a rifle on November 22.
And that treasure trove of conspiracy lore, Jim Marrs' Crossfire, makes a similar claim:
Another important piece of evidence involved a paraffin test made on Oswald the day of the assassination. The results of this test presented evidence that Oswald may not have fired a rifle that day, yet these results were downplayed and even suppressed by the federal authorities.
. . .

Oswald's hands both reacted positively to the paraffin test, indicating the presence of nitrates. But a cast of his right cheek showed no reaction. Any competent defense attorney would have pointed to this test as evidence that his client had not fired a rifle. (pp. 442-443)"




Additionally, please cite some source for your claim the rifle could not be tested "until it was repaired". That is more misinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #125
212. Let me make sure I get this straight.....
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 11:34 PM by SDuderstadt
You have to have a really great rifle to hit something at 50-66 yards. And apparently the USMC was pre-emptively in on the conspiracy by rating Oswald a sharpshooter. You guys are WAY too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #120
131. Surely, by now, you have learnt like the rest of us here at DU, that
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 01:43 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
conspiracies, like fraud are tried on the basis of circumstantial evidence! And this isn't even even a formal investigation or trial, which, in any case, has aleady found that conspiracy was the most probable cause - in the second and definitive Commission, which I actually referred to, but which you conveniently ignored.

"(In other words, it refers to more than just misspellings)"... but its sure looked like a Freudian slip. But then it wouldn't to an ostrich.

"Care to share it? Hint: supposition and speculation do not amount to proof."

No, I absolutely would not care to share it! Do you really think I would ever feel the need to spell out to you what an imbecile could recognise, but which you choose not to! I'm furious that I've involved myself in an argument with a half-wit, now. Most people on DU, most people in the US, most people in the world, know beyond all peradventure that there was a bi-artisan, right-wing conspiracy at the highest level to murder JFK. Why would I be interested in adducing evidence to the wilfully ingnorant? All you need do is study the very lengthy compilation, and inevitably implicit synthesis, towards the bottom of the thread, of all the evidence, or almost all of it.

As regards Oswald's rifle, no I didn't keep the relevant newspaper clipping in case I might feel a burning need to convince a numptie who has no intention of acknowledging the truth of what happened that day.

Oh, and by the way, don't call me, I'll call you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. In other words....
You can't and won't prove your case, so you just resort to multiple insults and name-calling. Amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #135
192. Well, by responding to your hilariously wishful thinking, I'm making a
second fool, where there was only one, you, but answer me this: why was the History Channel repeatedly urged to desist from showing their documentary about the conspiracy to murder John Kennedy, instead of being forced to make a follow-up documentary, to answer corresponding rebuttals (existing only in your pathological fantasies, of course)! Only a dolt like you, wouldn't have caught on: could it possibly because they COULDN'T, Mutley! Why else?

Come on now. I'm sure you have a plausible explanation? Well... a farcical attempted explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #192
206. "Why was the History Channel repeatedly urged to desist from showing their documentary
about the conspiracy to murder John Kennedy, instead of being forced to make a follow-up documentary, to answer corresponding rebuttals....!"

Well, we're still waiting with bated breath for your reply. Before you start sneering at people you proceed to insult with your specious "official" facts, you need to understand that you must take your stand on the truth, if you can ever hope to hold your own with people who understand the primacy of argument from first principles.

They are not going to allow you to jerk them around by adducing putative hard evidence, which can usually be subverted, as it was so often in this sordid, squalid, shameful episode in US history by the self-same, official establishment, the whole panoply of state. As you well know.

Always disasteful to exchange views with you, so pardon the contumely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #206
215. I'll respond to you when....
you quit using phrases like "only a dolt like you". You don't want to debate. You want to insult and call names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #58
172. Good to see these documents here posted . . .. for the record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #172
207. Thank you and I agree.
Anyone who would swallow Buggy's warmed over Warren Commission is basically engaging in wishful thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
171. Evidently a lot of CIA personnel came forward immediately after Oswald was identified . . ..
to make clear that he was CIA --

A lot of those people began to have serious problems -- and the more they talked the more serious the problems.

Some persisted until they were forced to stop --

Most shut up much earlier getting the message.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #171
180. Name one....
be specific
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #180
182. When I find the link again, I'll be happy to supply the names to you . . .
meanwhile, why don't you look it up for your own benefit and to satisfy your high interest -- ???




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #182
183. Because...
I am already familiar with their testimony. Besides, it's YOUR claim!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #183
194. Whose testimony?
You do have the testimony of the individual posted by someone else --

However, the people I spoke of were simply personnel who were trying to alert officials in regard to Oswald being CIA -- it took them a bit before they got the message that no one wanted this information to get thru. Some persisted until the retributions became stronger.

As I recall it, I don't think any of them -- save the case posted here in this thread -- got to the point where they could make official reports.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
35. I've read the book.
I admire Mr. Bugliosi. But his book is his opinion. It has some weak points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. The book is "opinion"?
Have you actually read it? Please cite the "weak points".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Sure.
Just to show you, I'll give you the quick answer: 696n-97n.

Your move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Find it yet? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Well....
Edited on Tue Oct-23-07 10:01 PM by SDuderstadt
I am not glued to my computer, if that's what you're asking....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. I'm not, either.
I had assumed that you were interested in discussing parts of the Bugliosi book. My error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Actually, I am....
Sorry....I merely read the headline "found it yet" and interpreted it to be impatience. Forgive me, my friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. Not a problem.
It would be unfair of me to begin a discussion about one point in the book, without telling you which part I can shed some light on. If tonight isn't good for you, we can continue tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Tonight is fine, at least for now...
I'm on the west coast (SF Bay area), so it's only 8:30 PM here. I thought there was a way to continue this by some sort of private message function, but I'll be damned if I know how or if it's even possible.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. See #59. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Ummm
This section about de Mohrenschildt and his conversations with Oswald after the attempt on Walker is heavily endnoted. Please cite whatever you regard as "opinion"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. No.
That's not it. I think you are looking at 654-55. Go to 696n-97n.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. I don't think I got the wrong page...
The first full sentence at the top of 696 is "They were speechless", in my copy. It's referring to the de Mohrenschildts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Well
I did not list a page. That's from the endnotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I see...
Edited on Tue Oct-23-07 10:15 PM by SDuderstadt
there's a lot in those two pages, but it mostly concerns a visit from the de Mohrenschildts from what I can tell...and, btw, nice to meet you (as well as someone who's actually read or is reading the book)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. It's not those pages.
It's a footnote where Mr. Bugliosi distorts something involving Tip O'Neill. It has to do with a lunch Tip had in June of 1968.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Are you talking about the endnotes...
Edited on Tue Oct-23-07 10:19 PM by SDuderstadt
whioh are contained in the CD? I think I'm misunderstanding what 696n-97n means somehow...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Post 49
confirms that. It's about the lunch Tip O'Neill attended in June of 1968.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Help!
I see where you got it from the index. I don't know what 696n-97n means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. Okay.
There are a lot more pages on the disc. I'll just explain. Again, I think very highly of Vince Bugliosi. He is highly intelligent, and honest. He put a lot of work into the book, because it is so important to him.

However, even Vince's closest friends would have to say that he has an edge to him, whrn he feels that he is in a debating "contest." That's one reason he was so good at what he did. But it can cloud judgement. And when people interpret facts, there is an area where opinion comes in to play.

Now, Vince makes a point of attempting to include numerous things that contradict his view, though he usually discounts them. But he doesn't include a significant one in the book. Thus the difficulty locating this.

In June of 1968, after Robert was killed, Tip was having lunch with some of the "Irish mafia." The topic went to Dallas -- for obvious reasons. Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell told about being sure that some shots came from the grassy knoll. Tip reminded them that they had not testified that story to the Warren Commission.

They told him that the FBI had pressured them to knowingly lie to the Commission. Tip wrote in his autobiography that he had always believed the Commission up until that day. He later called to check that he had understood them correctly; the story was confirmed.

Vince attacked O'Neill's integrity, saying that he doubted Tip had actually read the pair's WC testimony. That is not important. Tip was familiar with the general report, which did not include anything about Kennedy men being sure that some of the shots had come from the grassy knoll.

Vince's book also does not mention that on that November 1963 day, when they returned from Dallas, the pair met with RFK in Washington, and told him that they were sure, based on sight and hearing, that shots came from the knoll.

It is generally accepted that if agents of a police agency such as the FBI pressure two eye witnesses to knowingly lie about what they saw, the investigation is seriously contaminated. If possible, a good DA would track down both the witnesses, the investigators in question, and anyone else who had related information .... such as others at that June '68 lunch. Vince didn't; instead, he attacks Tip O'Neill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #59
68. I'm not familiar with that, but...
believe it or not, I also own Tip O'Neill's "Man of the House". Let me read up on it and comment afterward. BTW, thanks for the great conversation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #68
92. Page 211
There are other related sources. But Tip's book is very good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #92
241. Hi there!
Any feedback from SDuderstad on his take regarding the Tip O'Neill lunch? I was following this exchange with great interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #241
242. No.
Not that I am aware of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #242
249. I will, though...
just behind on things with clients.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #68
191. I'm curious to read your future comment as well.
I haven't read the book, but I have enjoyed reading this exchange between two people who have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
69. I would like to have asked Oswald some questions...
Too bad Jack Ruby brought a speedy end to that possibility.

Sorry, no, I haven't read his book.

What does he say about the fake Oswald in Mexico City?



Here's a guy the CIA told the Warren Commission was OSWALD...



The Framing of Oswald

"The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

The paragraph shown above comes from an FBI memo sent to both the White House and the Secret Service on November 23, 1963, the day after President Kennedy's assassination. It was a follow-up to a phone call at 10:01 AM, in which Director Hoover informed Lyndon Johnson of the same fact. Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of Kennedy held in police custody in Dallas, had been impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet Embassy in Mexio City.

The fact that Oswald was impersonated less than two months prior to the Dallas shooting was obviously important news. What made the revelation even more stunning was that, in one such call, "Oswald" referred to a previous meeting with a Soviet official named Kostikov. Valeriy Kostikov was well-known to the CIA and FBI as a KGB agent operating out of the Embassy under official cover. But, far more ominously, the FBI's "Tumbleweed" informant had previously tipped off the U.S. that Kostikov was a member of the KGB's "Department 13," involved in sabotage and assassinations.

An otherwise inexplicable impersonation episode takes on an entirely new meaning in this light. The calls from the Oswald impersonator made it appear that Oswald was a hired killer, hired by the Soviet Union no less. This was a prescription for World War III.

Perhaps the perfect plan was foiled by the fact that Oswald was captured, allowing the FBI to interrogate him and compare his voice to the tapes of these tapped phone calls, which were apparently flown up from the CIA's Mexico City Station on the evening of November 22. In any case, what should have been a hot lead to sophisticated conspirators was instead quickly buried—by November 25, FBI memos made no more mention of tapes, only transcripts. The CIA has maintained to this day that the tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, and no tapes were ever sent. But the evidence that the tapes did exist and were listened to is now overwhelming, and includes several FBI memos, a call from Hoover to LBJ which appears to have been suspiciously erased, and even the word of two Warren Commission staffers who say they listened to the tapes during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964!

Back in November 1963, with the knowledge that it wasn't Oswald in these calls to the Soviet Embassy tightly held, and with witnesses coming forward to claim seeing Oswald take money to kill Kennedy from Cuban operatives, a coverup went into high gear. Lyndon Johnson used the fear of nuclear war, bandying about the figure "40 million Americans" who would die in a nuclear exchange. Even though he knew of the impersonation, Johnson used this false scare to press men like Richard Russell and Earl Warren onto a President's Commission which another Commissioner, John J. McCloy, said was to "settle the dust."

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/frameup.htm



Those interested in a scholarly analysis might enjoy reading John Newman:

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html

PS: A hearty welcome to DU, SDuderstadt! If you want to learn more about the JFK assassination, let me recommend the work of a few scholars and web sites, including Peter Dale Scott, John M. Newman, Gaeton Fonzi, Mark North, Vincent Salandria, JFKLancer and HistoryMatters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #69
100. I believe that
he is an "old-timer" who posts infrequently.

Vince Bugliosi's comments on the Mexican issues is not one of the stronger parts of his book, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #69
126. With all due respect...
Those are some of the worst offenders. For example, the allegedly "fake Oswald" claim has been roundly debunked. One can do that with Logic and critical thinking alone. Assume, for a second, that the photo IS of an actual Oswald impersonator operated by the CIA (or anyone else for that matter). Why in the world would anyone supposedly competent enough to pull off an assassination and pin it on Oswald use an "impersonator" that doesn't even LOOK like Oswald? Can anyone answer that question? Please.


BTW, thanks for the welcome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #126
136. "Debunked" implies
that a falsehood has been exposed. Are you able to: (a) supply proof that the photo is a fake? That it was something produced by the people who believed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Or would you agree that the photo (one of a series) is something that was fund in the National Archives, as noted in Mr. Bugliosi's book?; and (b) If it is indeed in the National Archives -- and I'll venture we can agree that it is, and was not planted by conspiracy theorists, who is it? And how was it that some folks, before any conspiracy theorist saw it, believed it was Lee Harvey Oswald? I would venture that those who believe that Oswald was a "patsy" believe the idea was to create a false paper trail of LHO's movements, not a photographic record. If he was a "patsy" being set up, it seems possible that those creating a paper record would assume that would meet their needs. Those who believe that Oswald acted alone have not been able to explain the photo in any meaningful way, except to say, "It doesn't look like Oswald. Why would anyone use a guy who doesn't look like Oswald?" That does not seem to qualify as "debunking."

Of course, that is just my opinion. I respect that others are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #136
138. I am not saying that...
the photo is a fake. I am asking why anyone clever enough to pull off such an assassination and subsequently pinning it on Oswald, wouldn't at least go to the trouble of fielding someone who actually looked like the person he was supposedly impersonating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #138
150. For what purpose?
Someone was there, and people thought he was Oswald. Could you provide any possible explanation for this?

In his classic book on the Manson "family," Mr. Bugliosi spoke about a pair of glasses that were found in the Tate house. They were a piece of evidence that was never explained. Mr. Bugliosi correctly noted that in many investigations, there are bits of evidence that remain unexplained. It seems odd that one of them would be a fellow who was mistaken for Oswald by American authorities. One possible explanation is that he was attempting to leave a paper trail implicating Oswald. Another is that he is like the Tate glasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #150
161. Excellent points and questions...
My understanding is that the CIA maintained photographic surveillance of the Russian Embassy/Consulate in Mexico City. The only problem is the surveillance was not without problem, including breakdowns of the equipment on a regular basis. We know that Oswald visited said embassy through a variety of sources, not the least of which is Oswald himself.

I could be wrong about this (and I am actually headed out the door to a meeting), but my recollection is that the CIA was pressed for a photo of Oswald visiting the embassy and, not knowing what he looked like, offered the only photo of a caucasian they had that generally fit Oswald's description (but, in fact, was not Oswald). Since we know that Oswald did, in fact, visit that embassy during the same time and if, in fact, the CIA was trying to frame Oswald for the future assassination of JFK, why wouldn't they supply a picture of Oswald? At the very least, as I have stated previously, if they intended someone to impersonate Oswald because he was not, in fact, there, how much sense does it make to recruit an impostor that doesn't even look like Oswald. Since the man in the photo has never been identified nor come forward, we are reduced to trying to solve this through inductive and deductive reasoning, which is why this never seems to end. Even worse, most of the major players in the assassination were either killed at the time (JFK, Oswald) or died in the ensuing years (Warren, Ruby, Kellerman, Connally, Johnson, et al). Fertile ground for even the goofiest of conspiracy theories.

As always, H2Oman, it's a pleasure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #161
167. He was identified
in Hugh C. MacDonald's "Appointment in Dallas," published in 1975. Mr. Bugliosi footnotes a 1992 edition, so it has been reprinted. Mr. MacDonald had a background in investigation and intelligence matters. Mr. Bugliosi mocks Mr. MacDonald for making sure his readers are aware of his credentials, a curious thing for a man who pastes "Author of Helter Skeltor" on his book on the Kennedy assassination. This is in the pattern of his mocking Tip O'Neill, rather than simply focusing on the information he has contributed to the discussion of the events in Dallas. Again, while Mr. Bugliosi is a brilliant and honest prosecutor, one can make a case that his personality can, at times, cloud the way he processes information for his readers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #167
176. Is there another way to communicate rather than through these threads?
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 07:30 PM by SDuderstadt
I have DU e-mail inbox, but I can't seem to figure out how to send, if that's even possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #176
204. I e-mailed you
yesterday. If that isn't an option, than this looks like the format for communicating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
104. Hmm
You may be right, but then I would think it in the CIA's interest to release this information. What is the motivation for concealment? Surely protection and technology have progressed a tiny bit in the last 44 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
105. Wouldn't it be a bit more valid...
Wouldn't it be a bit more valid to state that book's author believes there to be no credible evidence rather than stating emphatically "there is no credible evidence"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #105
122. No
I'm saying it. Because there isn't. Just a series of wild goose chases, mistaken identities, deliberately clipped quotes and mere speculation and supposition. No documentation and no smoking guns (no pun intended).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
229. That book was pure crap. He cherry picked info that fit HIS scenario, I watched him
debate a guy who knows the CIA/Government/Poppy Bush assassinated JFK and wrote books about it (can't remember the guy's name) and he wiped the floor with Bugliosi....with facts that contradicted everything the idiot said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #229
232. I see....
and you KNOW this guy KNOWS that the "CIA/US Government/Poppy Bush assassinated JFK" how, exactly? And you know this guy (who must have been so impressive you can't even remember his name, therefore, there is no way for anyone else to verify what you're even claiming at this point) had facts because you verified them or you just accepted that they were facts?

I have a simple question. Have you bothered to read Bugliosi's book? If you haven't, how would you know that Bugliosi "cherry-picked info" and your source didn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. Putting this on the greatest page!
But I'm sorry I can't come up with any guesses. I mean, it's not like Lee Harvey Oswald could have been an employee of the CIA? Could he? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
70. The Framing of Oswald
John Newman, West Point professor of history and author of Oswald and the CIA has uncovered lots of good information on the subject:

The Framing of Oswald

Oswald and Mexico City: A New Analysis

It turns out there is quite a paper record linking Oswald to CIA. Thanks for giving a damn about it, my Friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. George Joannides/CIA also involved in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy ---
There's film on that with George Joannides in the ballroom -- You Tube . . .
checking -- we should have this for the record here.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
225. Joannides was PAYMASTER for CIA Plot Linking Oswald to CASTRO


Oswald was the patsy for World War III.

Blaming Oswald for killing President Kennedy and then linking Oswald to Castro would create nationalistic feelings of revenge.

That, the CIA and its warmongering leadership believed, would give the nation the "Pearl Harbor" needed to invade Cuba and set the stage for the final war with the Soviets -- over whom we had a major nuclear first-strike strategic advantage. Plus, war is a money maker for warmongers.



WHAT JANE ROMAN SAID

A Retired CIA Officer Speaks Candidly About Lee Harvey Oswald


By Jefferson Morley

Dick Helms’ Man in Miami

Still more vindication came in November 1998. Without fanfare, the CIA declassified the personnel file of a previously unknown operations officer on the Special Affairs Staff named George Joannides. Jane Roman had said that in late 1963 certain people in the CIA’s anti-Castro operation were showing “a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.” Skeptics of my story could rightly ask, “Like who?”

The new records suggested George Joannides was one such SAS operative. The reason for his interest? The bulk of the available evidence indicates that Joannides in late 1963 was running a psychological warfare operation designed to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the Castro government without disclosing the CIA’s hand.

George E. Joannides (pronounced “Joe-uh-NEE-deez”) is a new and important character in the Kennedy assassination story. The son of a well-known Greek-American newspaper columnist in New York City, he went to law school and joined the CIA in 1951. Joannides, fluent in Greek and French, was sent to the Athens station. By 1963, he was 40 years old, a rising protégé of Tom Karamessines. He was highly regarded for his skills in political action, propaganda and psychological warfare operations. A dapper, witty man, Joannides presented himself publicly as a Defense Department lawyer. In fact, in 1963 he was Dick Helms’ man in Miami.

His personnel file showed that he served in 1963 as the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA’s station in Miami. He had a staff of 24 and a budget of $1.5 million. He also was in charge of handling the anti-Castro student group that Oswald had tried to infiltrate in August 1963. They called themselves the Cuban Student Directorate and it was Joannides’s job to guide and monitor them. Under a CIA program code named AMSPELL, he was giving $25,000 a month to Luis Fernandez Rocha and Juan Salvat, the Directorate’s leaders in Miami. That funding supported the Directorate’s chapters in New Orleans and other cities.

Fernandez Rocha and Salvat, who still live in Miami, confirm the story. Fenandez Rocha is a doctor. Salvat owns a publishing house. Both recall a close but stormy relationship with George Joannides whom they knew only as “Howard.” The records of the Directorate, now in the University of Miami archives, support their memories. The group’s archives show that “Howard” worked closely with the Directorate on a wide variety of issues. He bought them an air conditioner and reviewed their military plans. He was aware of their efforts to buy guns. He briefed them on how to answer questions from the press and paid for their travels. Joannides was certainly responsible for knowing if a Castro supporter was trying to infiltrate their ranks.

Then came November 22, 1963. On a political trip to Dallas, Kennedy died in a hail of gunfire. Ninety minutes later, a suspect, Lee Oswald, was arrested. Not long after that Joannides received a call from the Cuban students saying they knew all about the accused assassin. He told them not to go public until he could check with Washington. They went public anyway. As the American nation reeled from the shock of Kennedy’s violent death, Salvat and Fernandez Rocha and other Cuban students embarked on a wide-ranging and effective media blitz to link Fidel Castro to Kennedy’s death.

CONTINUED...

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_6.htm



No matter their reason, those who conspired against President Kennedy are still murderers and TRAITORS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. 1992 JFK Records Act: "OSWALD WAS EMPLOYED BY CIA WORKING ON HIGH LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS ....
AND PROBABLY ALSO FOR THE FBI."

That was the conclusion of the Panel which studied the classified documents --
headed by John Tunnheim -- they closed out their investigation about the time that the GOP was impeaching Clinton's penis . . . .

Evidently, the conclusion was delivered in secret --

A&E/History channel ran a documentary on it which was seen for about four or five months during the time they were calling themselves, "the network for the new Millennium."
And -- it disappeared -- not to be seen again.

Presumably the panel saw Oswald's employment records -- W-2 form, tax returns, etc.
ALL of that had been requested by journalists at the time of the assassination, but denied!!!!


Also -- there is a document by CIA Director John McCone to the Secret Service stating that Oswald was trained by the CIA to spy -- and had been sent to Russia. Prison Planet has a copy of the memo --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
24. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
25. Because they've been lying for 50 years!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
27. Must protect Bush 41, must protect Bush 41.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
28. Because they are implicated up to their necks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YellowRubberDuckie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
33. Because Poppy Bush was involved...
He "doesn't remember" where he was that day. And I believe I heard something about him being seen in Dallas the day before and the day after. He was CIA back then...Story goes JFK was going to disband the CIA and they didn't like that. Just something I heard.
Duckie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FtWayneBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. I don't know about the CIA being "disbanded" but
their ability to spread death and distruction overseas instead of just collecting information was about to be severely curtailed, IIRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
34. Two words...
Howard Hunt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Psst!
You're awesome! :hug:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #39
85. hahahaha
thanks and I love that image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. E. Howard Hunt's deathbed video revelation on JFK...
How will lone-gunman advocates spin it?

In a videotaped testament, CIA agent, Bay of Pigs veteran and Watergate "plumber" E. Howard Hunt, long suspected of involvement in JFK assassination, cops to knowledge of CIA plot to kill JFK in 1963 - draws organizational chart for his sons - keeps his last fig leaf by claiming he declined offer of participation - tries to shift the blame to Lyndon Johnson.

(more:)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x461116
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #40
87. i have often
wondered why a cia trained assassin would be breaking in to do a standard phone tap at the Dem HQ. following the money exposed the corruption, but why were two CIA training assassins, and a bunch of their Cuban assets (handler and asset are not supposed to be together)doing a phone tap? does that not seem a bit of an overkill? seems to me the boys were looking for something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #87
147. Some better information has been put forth . . .
Actually, if you read Woodward/Bernstein they report that the burglars were actually trying to PLANT information at Democratic HQs that the Democratic Party was taking money from communist Russia.

Presumably, that would not have been all --
Some suggest a search for evidence they feared that O'Donnell had come by --
something evidence re the coup on JFK?
Obviously, something they feared --


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #147
195. Wasn't this on a Nixon tape as well?

that the primary goal was to take info related to anti-Castro efforts, which some feel was code for the Kennedy Assassination?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #195
200. I'm a little behind on listening to Nixon tapes . . . though they were playing this week on C-span .
I prefer to look at transcripts cause I can get thru it faster --
but there is nothing like actually hearing the voices and inflections --
when you have the time ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #40
146. Of course, Howard Hunt was involved . . . however, when they kill your wife after ....
you've tried to blackmail them, I don't think you do much talking after that!

As far as LBJ being involved ... of course, he was! And H. L. Hunt, of course!!!

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1929769365635576415

And, he was certainly at the top of the pile because they could not have controlled investigations
and put the cover up in place without a president.

See the Murchinson Meeting --
In fact, Helen Thomas was at the party where this "meetng" occurred and she filed an affadavit on it later, indentifying those who attended --


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #146
155. What? Helen Thomas?! Confirmed the Murchison meeting? Source please!
Learn something new every day - now let's see if it's true. Wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #155
163. Here -- you can listen to the Interview with Madelain Brown and at the top . . .
she goes into the details about who attended the meeting --
Helen Thomas was there -- she filed an affadavit listing the participants

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1929769365635576415

Now -- let me recommend to you that if you're interested in a subject, research it --
This is OLD information . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #163
164. Thanks...
and avoid condescension, okay? Thanks for that in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #164
169. You're welcome . .. .
and I very much appreciate what you're saying about "condenscension" . . .
I will accept it as a legitimate rebuke because I really don't know your background as a poster here -- and you certainly don't know mine because I'm rather new here.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
41. George I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
61. Wouldn't you love to get GHW Bush on a lie detector and ask him
half dozen questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. Ve haff Vayz of maykink Zeeyoo tok!
I'd bet We the People could get to the bottom of things with six answers from Poppy.



Hitler taught him the methods for getting them, one way or another.

The Nazi Connection to the John F. Kennedy Assassination

It's almost ironic, how things work out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
62. K&R thanks for posting n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
66. Because the CIA assassinated him...
I'm not even joking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stranger81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #66
130. ding ding ding ding ding -- we have a winner! [n/t]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
71. Historians are the really deadly hunters of the CIA and its history...
Congressmen and other government officials today do not possess the knowledge and experience necessary to know what to look for and the intrinsic value of what is produced, and what is missing from disclosure.

A fully informed, engaged historian, can literally change public perception of the standing of individuals and institutions.

If they ever crack the door of the CIA archives, the outrage over CIA tactics and history will necessitate a complete overhaul of not only the CIA but other intelligence agencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #71
148. Well, JFK was suggesting th need to rip the CIA to bits and blow it away ---
was a great idea --- too bad it didn't happen!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
72. Because, unlike the people, the government has a right to privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
75. Because a CIA officer was involved in the assassination?
Perhaps the 41st president of the United States? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
83. I wonder how much less the iraq war would cost if they used them majic bullets..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #83
108. Those are apparently reserved for domestic use only.
:evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
84. What if it were related to CIA's Bay of Pigs?
I guess that by surpressing the evidence we'll never know what happened...





http://www.mackwhite.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. Working model based on Mack White's cartoon
For some unexplained reason my working model is no longer online at its original source, so let's paste the following story back. At least it'll show that the story can be sourced...

Operation 40

On 11th December (1959), Colonel J. C. King, chief of CIA's Western Hemisphere Division, sent a confidential memorandum to Allen W. Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. King argued that in Cuba there existed a "far-left dictatorship, which if allowed to remain will encourage similar actions against U.S. holdings in other Latin American countries."

As a result of this memorandum Dulles established Operation 40. It obtained this name because originally there were 40 agents involved in the operation. Later this was expanded to 70 agents. The group was presided over by Richard Nixon. Tracy Barnes became operating officer of what was also called the Cuban Task Force. The first meeting chaired by Barnes took place in his office on 18th January, 1960, and was attended by David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Jack Esterline, and Frank Bender.

On 4th March, 1960, La Coubre, a ship flying a Belgian flag, exploded in Havana Bay. (See also: U.S.S. Maine) It was loaded with arms and ammunition that had been sent to help defend Cuba's revolution from its enemies. The explosion killed 75 people and over 200 were injured. Fabian Escalante, an officer of the Department of State Security (G-2), later claimed that this was the first successful act carried out by Operation 40. (1)

Bay of Pigs

On March 17, 1960, President Dwight Eisenhower agreed to start a program to overthrow the Cuban Government. Run by the CIA, this program would train, arm, and recruit Cuban exiles to participate in an invasion of Cuba. (2) The planning was performed under the direction of Allen W. Dulles, and his deputy, Richard Bissell, with the knowledge and approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. John F. Kennedy agreed, for security reasons, that the fewer new faces in the government brought into the discussions, the better kept the secret would be. (3)

The Cuban-exiles later known as Brigade 2506 were first training in JM WAVE, Florida. The CIA decided that it was important to get foreign bases out of sight of the US public opinion. Guatemala where a puppet regime was installed after the 1954 CIA organized coup, popped up on the maps quickly.(4) , For several months the brigade of 1400 anti-Castro Cubans was trained in La Democracia, Huehuetenango, a plantation in Guatemala donated by Roberto Alejos (5). The base codenamed JM-TRAX was intended to train 20 radio operators. Later facilities for 1400 trainees were built and a $1,8 million airfield was established for the supplies send from Opa-Locka in Florida. The government of Guatemala however was getting worried about some many armed foreigners in its country and asked for the Cubans to be removed by the end of April.

The story also leaked to the New York Times which reported on April 7, 1961 that 5,000 to 6,000 men were recruited to liberate Cuba and that their training was done in Florida (JM WAVE), Louisiana (??) and Guatemala was almost complete.

CIA liaison officer L. Fletcher Prouty delivered three ships to a CIA agent named George H.W. Bush. (6). The boats used in the invasion were named Río Escondido, Houston and Barbara. (7). The operation was code-named "Operation Zapata". The brigade was moved to embarkation point at Puerto Cabeza, Nicaragua. (8) Some people have referred to the operation as Operation Pluto, however the Cubans and the CIA never used that name (9) and the operation was known as Zapata (10).

On April 17, 1961, the invasion was carried by 1500 Cuban exiles known as Brigade 2506. The intent of the attack was to take a beachhead at Bahia de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs), establish a government, and gain U.S. recognition. As the invaders began to leave their boats, the Cuban air force attacked. They sunk the Houston and the Río Escondido, cutting off supplies for the invaders. Kennedy was asked for permission to use the U.S. Air Force to destroy the Cuban army's planes. Kennedy only permitted them to give cover to planes flown by exiles, which arrived before the U.S. navy planes, and were consequently shot down. Exact details on the number of dead and captured differ. According to the Museum of Playa Girón, 1,197 exiles were captured. (11)

Operation Zapata was a failure and became known as the "Bay of Pigs" invasion.

After the Bay of Pigs failure

Shortly after President John F. Kennedy established a commission to investigate the failure and to consider whether the United States should conduct similar covert operations in the future. The commission - chaired by General Maxwell Taylor, Robert Kennedy, Admiral Arleigh Burke and DCI Allen Dulles - produced a highly critical report one of the conclusions was that "the impossibility of running Zapata as a covert operation under CIA should have been recognized" as early as November 1960, five months before the invasion.(12)

After the Bay of Pigs Kennedy met with Douglas MacArthur. According to Theodore Sorenson, MacArthur told Kennedy, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and you happen to have just moved into the chicken house." (13). At the same meeting MacArthur "warned against the committment of American foot soldiers on the Asian mainland, and the President never forgot this advice." (14)

The Bays of Pigs also produced an entire new Cuban cadre of CIA operators like E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Luis Posada Carriles, Frank Sturgis, Rolando Martinez, Chi Chi Quintero and Felix Rodriguez whose names in the next decades would pop over and over again in the most dangerous American foreign policy crises. (15)

And they were not pleased. E. Howard Hunt includes the following tirade about the Bay of Pigs: (16)

No event since the communization of China in 1949 has had such a profound effect on the United States and its allies as the defeat of the US-trained Cuban invasion brigade at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961.
Out of that humiliation grew the Berlin Wall, the missile crisis, guerrilla warfare throughout Latin American and Africa, and our Dominican Republic intervention. Castro's beachhead triumph opened a bottomless Pandora's box of difficulties that affected not only the United States, but most of its allies in the Free World. These bloody and subversive events would not have taken place had Castro been toppled. Instead of standing firm, our government pyramided crucially wrong decisions and allowed Brigade 2506 to be destroyed. The Kennedy administration yielded Castro all the excuse he needed to gain a tighter grip on the island of Jose Marti, then moved shamefacedly into the shadows and hoped the Cuban issue would simply melt away. (17)

Operation Mongoose

The Cuban-exiles and the CIA were not pleased that Fidel Castro was still in power and wanted to relaunch the Operation 40.

Following the disastrous invasion at Cuba's Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy administration regrouped and initiated a massive new covert action program to trigger Fidel Castro's overthrow. Operation Mongoose, as the effort was called, was launched in late 1961 and placed under the command of Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, an Air Force officer. (18)

In September 1960, Allen W. Dulles, the director of the CIA, initiated talks with two leading figures of the Mafia, Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana. (19)

The headquarters was JM WAVE in Miami - truly a state within a city - over, above, and outside the laws of the United States, with a staff of several hundred Americans directing many more Cuban agents in just such types of actions, with a budget in excess of $50 million (20) a year, and an arrangement with the local press to keep operations in Florida secret except when the CIA wanted something publicized. (21) (See also: Operation Mockingbird)

In November 1961 William Harvey was ordered to activate an assassination plot against Fidel Castro. This became part of what became known as the ZR/RIFLE project. Harvey decided to transfer David Sanchez Morales from Mexico City to the JM WAVE station. Johnny Roselli was also recruited into the project.

Roselli persuaded Santos Trafficante, the senior Mafia figure in Cuba, to join the conspiracy. Meyer Lansky also became involved in this plot and was reportedly offering a million-dollar reward for the Cuban leader's murder. Richard Cain, a specialist in electronics and wire taps, was also recruited by Roselli. Cain took part in a failed attempt in March 1961 to poison Castro.

On 12th March, 1961, William Harvey arranged for Jim O'Connell, to meet Sam Giancana, Santo Trafficante, Johnny Roselli and Robert Maheu at the Fontainebleau Hotel. During the meeting O'Connell gave poison pills and $10,000 to Rosselli to be used against Fidel Castro. As Richard D. Mahoney points out: (22)
"Late one evening, probably March 13, Rosselli passed the poison pills and the money to a small, reddish-haired Afro-Cuban by the name of Rafael "Macho" Gener in the Boom Boom Room, a location Giancana thought "stupid." Rosselli's purpose, however, was not just to assassinate Castro but to set up the Mafia's partner in crime, the United States government. Accordingly, he was laying a long, bright trail of evidence that unmistakably implicated the CIA in the Castro plot. This evidence, whose purpose was blackmail, would prove critical in the CIA's cover-up of the Kennedy assassination." (23)

In 1962 Theodore Shackley was appointed by William Harvey as deputy chief of JM WAVE. In April, 1962, Shackley was involved in delivering supplies to Johnny Roselli as part of the plan to assassinate Fidel Castro. Later that year he became head of the station that served as operational headquarters for Operation Mongoose. He was also responsible for gathering intelligence and recruiting spies in Cuba. (24)

The following plots were considered:
  • Inject an untraceable poison, botulinum toxin, into selections of Castro's favorite brand of cigars and present the poisoned cigars to him
  • Compress the poison into pill form and dissolve it into a drink for Castro
  • Create a booby-trapped seashell that would explode if removed from the ocean floor by Castro, who was an avid diver
  • Devise a wet suit with a breathing apparatus infected with deadly germs and present it to Castro as a gift
  • Equip a fountain pen with a hidden needle capable of injecting a lethal toxin and persuade Castro to write with it
  • Assassinate him with a high-powered rifle with telescopic sights (25)

    All plots of Operation Mongoose failed, but it implied that not only the CIA and the Cuban-exiles were frustrated, the Mafia had joined the ranks of displeased John F. Kennedy enemies.

    Operation Northwoods

    Operation Northwoods is a declassified operation to justify the invasion of Cuba. As a method of justification it discusses the use of staging terror like hijacking airplanes and then blaming Cuba for the terrorist attacks.

    Possible scenarios included:
  • Hijack planes
  • Fake a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner
  • Shoot people in sniper attacks
  • Blow up a ship
  • Blow up John Glenn's space capsule
  • Attack military bases

    Allen W. Dulles was fired from the CIA by Kennedy in 1961 over Operation Northwoods. Dulles was replaced by John McCone.

    Aftermath of the Cuba operations

    In order to run these operations from U.S. territory, flagrant and extensive violation of federal and state laws was the order of the day. Documents regarding the incorporation of businesses were falsified. Income tax returns were faked. FAA regulations were violated by planes taking off for Cuba or for forward bases in the Bahamas and elsewhere. Explosives moved across highways that were full of civilian traffic. The Munitions Act, the Neutrality Act, the customs and immigrations laws were routinely flaunted (26).

    Above all, the drug laws were massively violated as the gallant anti-communist fighters filled their planes and boats with illegal narcotics to be smuggled back into the U.S. when they returned from their missions. By 1963, the drug-running activities of the covert operatives were beginning to attract attention. JM/WAVE, in sum, accelerated the slide of South Florida towards the status of drug and murder capital of the United States it achieved during the 1980's, when it became as notorious as Chicago during Prohibition.(27)

    The failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and failed assassination plots utilizing CIA-recruited operatives from the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans directly against Fidel Castro undermined the CIA's credibility, and pro-American, but unpopular regimes in Iran (See: Operation Ajax) and Guatemala (See: Operation PBSUCCESS) were widely regarded as brutal and corrupt.

    Cuban Missile Crisis

    In June of 1961 Kennedy attended a summit with Premier Khrushchev in Vienna to discuss cold war confrontations between the east and west, in particular the situation in Berlin. Khrushchev viewed Kennedy as a weak president. Later American missiles were based a mere 150 miles from the Soviet Union, in Turkey which had become a NATO allie. (28) Khrushchev applies pressure to Berlin and eventually builts the Berlin Wall.

    A U-2 flight in late August photographed a new series of SAM sites being constructed, but on September 4 Kennedy told Congress that there were no offensive missiles in Cuba. On the night of September 8, the first consignment of SS-4 MRBMs was unloaded in Havana, and a second shipload arrived on September 16. The Soviets were building nine sites — six for SS-4s and three for SS-5s with a range of 4,000 km (2,400 statute miles). The planned arsenal was forty launchers, an increase in Soviet first strike capacity of 70%.

    On October 22, 1962, after reviewing newly acquired intelligence, President John F. Kennedy informed the world that the Soviet Union was building secret missile bases in Cuba, a mere 90 miles off the shores of Florida. (29) Kennedy asked for an assessment of damage incurred by a preemptive attack. (30) and decided on demanding that Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev to remove all the missile bases and their deadly contents and ordered a naval quarantine (blockade) of Cuba in order to prevent Russian ships from bringing additional missiles and construction materials to the island. (31)

    John F. Kennedy was afraid that Premier Khrushchev would authorize his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons, if invaded by U.S. forces. In hindsight it turned out that Krushchev was bluffing and Trotsnik send an order to Pavlov prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons without approval from Krushchev. (32). Also Kennedy met with Paul Nitze to make sure that noboby could fire nuclear weapons without approval from Kennedy. (33) During the tension of the next days the United States carried out 3 Nuclear Tests and the Soviet Union carried out 2 Nuclear Tests as well (34).

    Kennedy and Khrushchev start to write letters back and forth in an attempt to settle the dispute by diplomatic means. (35). These negotiations are successful. Khrushchev concedes to Kennedy's demands by ordering all Soviet supply ships away from Cuban waters and agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba's mainland.

    After several days of teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust, the world breathed a sigh of relief.

    In exchange for Khrushchev's commitment to remove the missiles from Cuba, a Hot Line between Kruschchev and John F. Kennedy gets established. Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba and three months after the Cuban Missile Crisis the United States secretly removed all its nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy

    On January 21, 1963 John F. Kennedy gives the signal for secret negotiations to end Vietnam. At the urging of Nehru, Galbraith meets with the Polish foreign minister, Adam Rapacki, in New Delhi on Jan. 21, 1963, where Galbraith expressed Kennedy's likely interest in a Polish proposal for a cease-fire and new elections in South Vietnam. Galbraith wrote in his memoirs that it was not followed up. (36)

    On March 4, 1963 John F. Kennedy began pursuing a secret dialogue toward an actual rapprochement with Fidel Castro. To a policy built upon "overt and covert nastiness," as Top Secret White House memoranda characterized U.S. operations against Cuba, was added "the sweet approach," meaning the possibility of "quietly enticing Castro over to us." National Security Council officials referred to this multitrack policy as "simil-opting"--the use of disparate methods toward the goal of moving Cuba out of the Soviet orbit. (37)

    On August 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and the United States prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.

    Vietnam

    When Kennedy became President he was given conflicting advice on Vietnam. Some, like President Charles De Gaulle of France, warned him that if he was not careful, Vietnam would trap the United States in "a bottomless military and political swamp." However, most of his advisers argued that with a fairly small increase in military aid, the United States could prevent a NLF victory in South Vietnam.

    Kennedy agreed and in 1961 he arranged for the South Vietnamese to receive the money necessary to increase the size of their army from 150,000 to 170,000. He also agreed to send another 100 military advisers to Vietnam to help train the South Vietnamese army. As this decision broke the terms of the Geneva Accords, it was kept from the American public. (38)

    Gradually the number of advisers was increased to 16,700, however many in the military-industrial complex were unhappy with the developments in Cuba and feared that Kennedy would show the same "lack of resolve" with regard to Vietnam and considered the current number of advisors too little.

    At this time, the group proposing escalation in Vietnam (as well as preparing the assassination of President Diem) had a heavy Brown Brothers, Harriman / Skull and Bones overtone: the hawks of 1961-63 were W. Averell Harriman, McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, Henry Cabot Lodge, and some key London oligarchs and theoreticians of counterinsurgency wars. And of course, George H.W. Bush during these years was calling for escalation in Vietnam and challenging John F. Kennedy to "muster the courage" to try a second invasion of Cuba. (39)

    Their fear about John F. Kennedy wanting to stop the escalating the Vietnam War and withdrawing troops soon came true. John F. Kennedy issued National Security Action Memorandum 263:

    At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

    The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

    After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon. (40)

    Kennedy was also attempting some secret negotiations which were still unsuccessful at the time and not followed through, but the Cuban Missiles Crisis had started an era of diplomacy over military strength.

    Kennedy, as shown by his American University speech of 1963, was also interested in seeking a more stable path of war avoidance with the Soviets, using the U.S. military superiority demonstrated to convince Moscow to accept a policy of world peace through economic development. Kennedy was interested in the possibilities of anti-missile strategic defense to put an end to that nightmare of "Mutually Assured Destruction" which appealed to Henry Kissinger, a disgruntled former employee of the Kennedy administration whom the president had denounced as a madman. (41)

    Military Industrial Complex

    The military-industrial complex is generally defined as a "coalition consisting of the military and industrialists who profit by manufacturing arms and selling them to the government." (42)

    During the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower administrations the Military Industrial Complex was able to move to the center of power and have control of the decision making. Not only was the Military Industrial Complex severely unhappy about the lack of resolve and half-hearted attempts at rooting out communism a second term would mean a severe restriction of to their autonomy and ability to make the real decisions in the world.

    Intelligence Community

    If re-elected to a second term, Kennedy was likely to have re-asserted Presidential control over the intelligence community. There is good reason to believe that Kennedy would have ousted J. Edgar Hoover from his self-appointed life tenure at the FBI, subjecting that agency to Presidential control for the first time in many years. (43)

    Texas Oil

    The most prolific oil reserves in the United States were not discovered until October, 1930. The first small company to find oil in East Texas was Deep Rock Oil Company. The first investor to take advantage of the discovery was Haroldson L. Hunt. He bought 5,000 acres of leases and an eighty-acre tract for $1,335,000. Hunt soon owned 500 wells in East Texas.

    Texas oil millionaires fought hard to maintain its tax concessions. The most important of these was the oil depletion allowance. It was first introduced in 1913 and allowed producers to use the depletion allowed to deduct just 5 per cent of their income and the deduction was limited to the original cost of their property. However, in 1926 the depletion allowance was increased to 27.5 per cent.

    In 1955 Lyndon Johnson became majority leader of the Senate. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Russell now had complete control over all the important Senate committees. This was proving to be an expensive business. The money used to bribe these politicians came from Russell’s network of businessmen. These were men usually involved in the oil and armaments industries.

    As the historian, Robert A. Caro:
    "The Texans were elected on December 7, 1931, not only to the Speakership of the House but to the chairmanship of five of its most influential committees, Lyndon Johnson's first day in the Capitol was the day Texas came to power in it - a power that the state was to hold, with only the briefest interruptions, for more than thirty years." (44)

    In 1956 Senators called for an investigation into the lobbying of the oil industry by Thomas Hennings. Lyndon Johnson was unwilling to allow a senator not under his control to look into the matter. Instead he set up a select committee chaired by Walter F. George of Georgia, a member of the Southern Caucus. Johnson had again exposed himself as being in the pay of the oil industry. (45)

    The Texas Oil billionairs like H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison became among the richest people of the United States, but their power wasn't limited to just money. They extended their influence into politics and the CIA and were active in Christian right-wing propaganda. People like George H.W. Bush, Robert Mosbacher, James A. Baker III were called the Texans by Richard Nixon and combined their oil fortunes with overt and covert politics.

    President Kennedy became concerned about people like H.L. Hunt who used tax exemptions to spread right-wing propaganda. In 1963 Kennedy talked about plans to submit to Congress a tax reform plan designed to produce about $185,000,000 in additional revenues by changes in the favourable tax treatment until then accorded the gas-oil industry. (46)

    In 1963 Kennedy was also talking about bringing an end to the oil depletion allowance (27.5 percent). The oil depleation allowance was highly profitable tax dodge for oil companies. (47)

    Another person in the circle of Texas Oil was George De Mohrenschildt. In 1939 he went to work for Humble Oil, a company founded by Prescott Bush. In 1957, de Mohrenschildt was approved by the CIA Office of Security to be hired as a US government geologist for a mission to Yugoslavia. (48)

    In October, 1962 De Mohrenschildt became friends with Lee Harvey Oswald in Fort Worth. He suggested that Oswald should move to Dallas. In February, 1963 he introduced Marina Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald to Ruth Paine. (49). The very day the Committee tried to contact de Mohrenschildt about testifying about the JFK assassination, he was found dead of a gun shot wound. His personal address book was found and it contained the entry "Bush, George H. W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland." (50)

    Permindex

    In 1962, French president Charles de Gaulle publicly accused Centro Mondiale Commerciale (the Italian branch of Permindex) of channeling money to OAS (Secret Army Organization), which made several attempts on de Gaulle’s life for liberating Algeria.

    Permindex was funding 5 organizations in the US:

    1) The Czarist Russian, Eastern European and Middle East exile organization called Solidarists connected to Lyndon Johnson
    2) American Council of Churches, an H.L. Hunt organization
    3) Free Cuba Committee - Carlos Prio Soccaras (Cuban ex-president). Among the members were Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald
    4) "The Syndicate" - Clifford Jones and Bobby Baker working with Joe Bonanno Mafia family;
    5) NASA's Security Division - Werner Von Braun, headquarters in Redstone Arsenal in Muscle Shoals, Alabama and on East Broad Street in Columbus, Ohio. (51)

    According to William Torbitt they were run by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover with agents included Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and others, but I'm sceptical about that part, because it's based on the Jim Garrison story

    Interesting about Permindex is that it is funded by H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, John De Menil, John Connally, Haliburton Oil Co., Senator Robert Kerr, George and Herman Brown of Brown & Root (merged with Haliburton), Intercontinental Hotel Corp and more. (52)

    Organized Crime

    In September 1960, Allen W. Dulles, the director of the CIA, initiated talks with two leading figures of the Mafia, Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana. (53)

    The reason for the mafia-CIA relation probably starts when the Cubans start drug trafficking. It turns out that drugs make for a wonderful additional budget. Later it will become the main budget for black operations. The CIA-drugs link was discovered during the Iran-Contra, but sadly the Corporate media didn't take much notice of it.

    With the drug trade came the mafia and it seems like nobody was really concerned, because an additional bonus was that the mafia could be used for the dirty work as well and couldn't be traced back to the CIA. Also the biographies of most of Cuban exiles look a lot like mobsters biographies. And the US Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have a profile which makes most mob bosses jealous.

    The CIA-drug problem is probably the main reason why drugs are illegal, because if they become legal than there will be a budget crisis for black operations. (54)

    John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy worked closely together on a wide variety of issues including the attempt to tackle organized crime. In March 1961, the Attorney General took steps to have Marcello deported to Guatemala (the country Marcello had falsely listed as his birthplace). On 4th April, Marcello was arrested by the authorities and taken forcibly removed to Guatemala. (55)

    Carlos Marcello had links with H.L. Hunt, the Texan oil billionaire, through Jim Brading.

    November 1st, 1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem assassination

    United States came and started supporting a man called Ngo Dinh Diem, who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. Who set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they spoke out against the brutal policies of Diem. (56)

    The U.S hoped that Diem could be the charismatic equivalent of Ho Chi Minh. but Diem showed to be unsuited to role the U.S. had written for him, the opinions of these strategists began to change in the 1960s. U.S. planners complained, claiming to be annoyed that Diem had not implemented land reforms to compete with the highly popular Communist program, and further claimed that the nepotism and corruption in his government was hurting the Southern cause. (57)

    Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large. By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running "Vietnam without consulting the president or the Attorney General." (58)

    Shortly after Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. and Admiral Felt had called on Diem on November 1, the generals made their move, culminating a summer and fall of complex intrigue. The coup was led by General Minh, the most respected of the senior generals, together with Generals Don, Kim and Khiem. They convoked a meeting of all but a few senior officers at JGS headquarters at noon on the day of the coup, announced their plans and got the support of their compatriots.

    The coup itself was executed with skill and swiftness. They had devoted special attention to ensuring that the major potentially loyal forces were isolated and their leaders neutralized at the outset of the operation. By the late afternoon of November 1, only the palace guard remained to defend the two brothers.

    At 4:30 p.m., Diem called Lodge to ask where the U.S. stood. Lodge was noncommital and confined himself to concern for Diem's physical safety. The conversation ended inconclusively. The generals made repeated calls to the palace offering the brothers safe conduct out of the country if they surrendered, but the two held out hope until the very end.

    Sometime that evening they secretly slipped out of the palace through an underground escape passage and went to a hide-away in Cholon. There they were captured the following morning after their whereabouts was learned when the palace fell. Shortly the two brothers were murdered in the back of an armored personnel carrier en route to JGS headquarters. (59)

    With Diem gone, the American could start to escalate the Vietnam War. There was only one obstacle left...

    Enemy summary

    The Kennedys were making big changes - and powerful enemies in the process...

    Let's summarize the powers which were working against John F. Kennedy:
    The CIA. Under the direction of Allen W. Dulles they managed to become one of the most powerful government agencies. During the Kennedy administration attempts were made to limit their power. The most powerful characters in this group are:
  • James Jesus Angleton
  • George H.W. Bush
  • Allen W. Dulles
  • William Harvey
  • Robert Maheu also working for Howard Hughes
  • John McCone
  • Theodore Shackley
  • David Sanchez Morales

    John Simkin speculation:
    Morales was put in charge of the assassination. He employed people he had been working with in Miami to undermine the government of Cuba. This included figures in the anti-Castro Cuban community. It also involved American military advisers to groups like Alpha 66. The Cubans believed that the reason for this plot was that after the assassination of JFK, LBJ would order the invasion of Cuba. In fact, this was never the objective. It was part of the overall conspiracy to keep Castro in power. The presence of a communist state so close to the United States helped to reinforce the communist threat and the need for massive arms spending. (60)

    Wim Dankbaar speculation:
    David Morales planned the assassination. He was a CIA agent but this was not a CIA operation. Morales in turn recruited men who had worked for the Mafia (Herminio Diaz Garcia, John Martino) but it was not a Mafia operation. He also employed members of the anti-Castro Cuban community (Antonio Veciana, Eladio del Valle) but it was not a Alpha 66 operation. Although we can speculate, we will never know the name of the organization behind the assassination. Morales was the cut-out. Once he died in 1978 this became impossible to know. (61)

    The Cuban-exiles. Their objective of reconquering Cuba had been permantly delayed. In the meantime they managed to get a stronghold within the CIA. The most powerful characters in this group are:
  • Luis Posada Carriles
  • E. Howard Hunt
  • Rolando Martinez
  • Felix Rodriguez
  • Frank Sturgis
  • Chi Chi Quintero

    The FBI in the person of J. Edgar Hoover who build a huge organization for himself, but Robert Kennedy wanted to move the FBI under presidential control. The most powerful characters in this group are:
  • J. Edgar Hoover
  • Clyde Tolson

    The Mafia. They had a lot of business interests in Cuba and managed to get a stronghold within the CIA and Lyndon B. Johnson. But Robert Kennedy was working against them. The most powerful characters in this group are:
  • Sam Giancana
  • Carlos Marcello
  • John Martino
  • John Roselli
  • Santos Trafficante

    Texas Oil. They had become very powerful, but during the Kennedy administration attempt were made to chip away their powerbase. The most powerful characters in this group are:
  • George H.W. Bush
  • Haroldson L. Hunt
  • George De Mohrenschildt
  • Clint Murchison
  • Richard Russell, Jr.

    US Officials. A group within the Kennedy administration considered Kennedy a weak president who did not cater to the ideas of military intervention and gave too much away in his negotiations with the Russian and Cubans. The most powerful characters in this groups are:
  • McGeorge Bundy
  • William Bundy
  • W. Averell Harriman
  • Lyndon B. Johnson
  • Henry Cabot Lodge
  • Richard Nixon (He was put in charge of Operation 40 and even though he was a Republican and not part of the government he already was quite influential)

    The main character in this whole group is Lyndon B. Johnson who had his finger in most of the above. Let's take a closer look at Johnson.

    Lyndon B. Johnson and the Bobby Baker scandal

    Bobby Baker was Johnson's secretary and political adviser. In the early 1950s Baker had also been involved in helping that Intercontinental Hotels Corporation establishing casinos in the Dominican Republic. He continued to do business with mobsters Levison, Giancana and Ben Siegelbaum (an associate of Jimmy Hoffa) in the Dominican Republic. Baker argued that Dominican Republic could be a Mafia replacement for Cuba. However, these plans came to an end when the military dictator, Rafael Trujillo, was murdered on the orders of the CIA.

    Bobby Baker was investigated by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. He discovered Baker had links to Clint Murchison and several Mafia bosses. Evidence also emerged that Lyndon B. Johnson was also involved in political corruption. This included the award of a $7 billion contract for a fighter plane, the TFX, to General Dynamics, a company based in Texas. On 7th October, 1963, Baker was forced to leave his job. Soon afterwards, Fred Korth, the Navy Secretary, was also forced to resign because of the TFX contract.(62)

    According to Joachim Joesten: (63)
    The Baker scandal then is truly the hidden key to the assassination, or more exact, the timing of the Baker affair crystallized the more or less vague plans to eliminate Kennedy which had already been in existence… The threat of complete exposure which faced Johnson in the Baker scandal provided that final impulse he was forced to give the go-ahead signal to the plotters who had long been waiting for the right opportunity. (64)

    Lyndon B. Johnson and the Billie Sol Estes scandal

    Billie Sol Estes started up a company providing irrigation pumps that used cheap natural gas. Estes's business encountered problems when the Department of Agriculture began to control the production of cotton. In 1958 Estes made contact with Lyndon B. Johnson. Over the next couple of years Estes ran a vast scam getting federal agricultural subsidies. According to Estes he obtained $21 million a year for "growing" and "storing" non-existent crops of cotton. (65)

    On June 3, 1961, Estes' contact at the Department of Agriculture, Henry Marshall, was found dead as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning from a hose attached to the exhaust pipe of his car. The death was ruled a suicide, but rumours circulated that Marshall had been killed because he was aware of Estes' scam. On April 4, 1962 Estes' accountant, George Krutilek, was also found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. Krutilek had been questioned by the FBI about Estes the day before. (66)

    On 4th April, 1962, George Krutilek, Estes chief accountant, was found dead. Despite a severe bruise on Krutilek's head, the coroner decided that he had also committed suicide. (67)

    On April 5, 1962, Estes and several business associates were indicted by a federal grand jury on 57 counts of fraud. Two of them, Harold Orr and Coleman Wade, died before the case came to trial in October. Estes was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to eight years in prison. He was eventually found guilty of additional federal charges and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. As a result of the scandal, president John F. Kennedy began considering dropping Johnson as his running mate in the 1964 election. (68)

    On 24th June, 1962, Senator John McClellan of Arkansas announced that his Permanent Investigations Committee would be looking into the activities of Estes. On 27th July one witness testified that Lyndon B. Johnson was getting a rake-off from the federal agricultural subsidies that Estes had been obtaining. Estes trial began in October 1962. John Cofer, who was also Lyndon Johnson's lawyer, refused to put Estes on the witness stand. Estes was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to eight years in prison. Federal proceedings against Estes began in March 1963. He was eventually charged with fraud regarding mortgages of more that $24 million. Estes was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. (69)

    The History Channel had to apologize for the documentary that blamed LBJ for JFK's Murder (70)
    The History Channel observed the fortieth anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination with a series of films, The Men who Killed Kennedy. The most widely-viewed hour, The Guilty Men, cast Lyndon Baines Johnson in a starring role for ordering the assassination. (The film partially is based on the Billie Sol Estes testimony).
    LBJ's family and friends heatedly protested the program. Finally, after former President Gerald Ford weighed in with his objections. The History Channel has made a start in the right direction as it has totally disavowed the program and publicly promised it never will be shown again. (71)

    Lyndon B. Johnson Vice Presidential ticket for 1964

    Vice President Lyndon Johnson was supported both by Texas oil interest and Carlos Marcello. In addition, he had been involved in criminal enterprises with the likes of Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker - scandals which the Kennedys (JFK, RFK) were using to force him off the 1964 presidential ticket.

    W. Penn Jones (72) claimed that in 1963 Kennedy decided that Johnson was to be replaced by George Smathers (73):
    Bobby Baker was about the first person in Washington, DC to know that Lyndon Johnson was to be dumped as the Vice-Presidential candidate in 1964. Baker knew that President Kennedy had offered the spot on the ticket to Senator George Smathers of Florida... Baker knew because his secretary. Miss Nancy Carole Tyler, roomed with one of George Smathers' secretaries. Miss Mary Jo Kopechne had been another of Smathers' secretaries. Now both Miss Tyler and Miss Kopechne have died strangely. (74) (75)

    November 21, 1963

    On November 21, 1963, Jim Brading visited Hunt in his office in Dallas. Brading was arrested in the Dal-Tex building in the Dealey Plaza soon after the assassination took place, but was released soon afterwards. (76)

    On November 21, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson attended a party at the Dallas home of oil baron Clint Murchison. Also in attendance were J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Haroldson L. Hunt, Clyde Tolson, John J. McCloy.

    Johnson's mistress Madeleine Brown was there as well. Years later, she told how all the men went into a conference room to talk privately. Then when they came out...
    Squeezing my hand so hard, it felt crushed from the pressure, he spoke with a grating whisper, a quiet growl, into my ear, not a love message, but one I'll always remember: "After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise." (77)

    Lyndon Johnson enters JFK’s Texas Hotel suite later in the evening, Lyndon Johnson attempted to get the seating arrangements changed. For some strange reason he wanted John Connally to be in his car and for Ralph Yarborough to go with John F. Kennedy. This was a surprising idea as this would have given extra status to his political opponent. (78) There was a fight about this and eventually the seating was left unchanged. Kennedy flatly refuses and Johnson leaves the suite "like a pistol." (79)

    Lyndon Johnson and Ralph Yarborough didn't like one-another too much, even though Yarborough had been the main person writing most of the civil rights legislation during the Johnson administration. Yarborough is the acknowledged "patron saint of Texas liberals" (80) and used the slogan "Let's put the jam on the lower shelf so the little people can reach it" in his campaigns. He stood for everything which Johnson detested.

    November 22, 1963

    The execution of John Kennedy took place the next in Dallas in a city in the terrority of mobster Carlos Marcello, as well as under the control of oil barons Clint Murchison and H.L. Hunt.
    No bodyguards for JFK

    At the last moment the route taken was changed to pass the Texas School Book Depository and the Grassy Knoll. During the ride the bodyguards which were supposed to be behind and next to JFK's car were called away. One bodyguard stood in disbelieve when he received the order to go to the car with Lyndon Johnson and abandon the President. Since this was going on behind the car John Kennedy never noticed the commotion.

    Senator Ralph Yarborough, riding with Lyndon Johnson in the car behind Kennedy stated that Johnson ducked before the first shot was fired. It is likely that nine shots were fired in all. The final shot came from the front...

    President John F. Kennedy died at 12:30. The cover-up started right away. All scenarios are blurry since there is a massive amount of disinformation and McAdamization produced in all likelyhood by the CIA and FBI. Many important documents and evidence have been destroyed to conceal what really happened. We will never know the whole story.

    Chauncey Holt was in the parking lot behind the Grassy Knoll. After the shooting took place Holt went to hide in a railroad car. He was joined by Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers. However, soon afterwards, Dallas police officers entered the railroad car and arrested all three men. The three men along with Jim Brading (Eugene Hale Brading) were interviewed by Gordon Shanklin of the FBI and then released. (81)

    There were people on the South Grassy Knoll. There are indications that E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Tosh Plumlee, Sergio Arcacha Smith were there as well. According to Tosh Plumlee he and his associate Sergio were part of a CIA "abort team" (82)

    At 12:43 p.m Lee Harvey Oswald’s description in connection with the murder of Patrolman J.D. Tippit was broadcast over Dallas police radio.

    At approximately 1:15, 45 minutes after the shooting, J.D. Tippit stopped Lee Harvey Oswald, who fit the general description of the assassin. Tippit called to Oswald from the car. They spoke briefly, then Tippit got out of the car. Tippit was shot with a .38 and was killed instantly. 13 witnesses identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the shooter or as fleeing the scene. (83)

    On 1:45 p.m. George H.W. Bush set up an alibi by calling the FBI saying that he heard that James Parrott was plotting to assassinate John F. Kennedy and that he was on his way to Dallas (See also: George H.W. Bush JFK assassination letter). There is a picture of the Texas School Book Depository with a person looking like George H.W. Bush standing in the background while the Dallas Police is sealing off the building. (84)

    Lyndon Johnson makes a wink to Congressman Albert Thomas who is winking back. (85) The coup d'etat of the US Government was a fact now. Lyndon Johnson will be 36th President of the United States.

    Johnson was sworn-in as President on Air Force One in Dallas at Love Field Airport after the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. He was sworn in by federal judge Sarah T. Hughes, a very close friend of his family, making him the first president sworn in by a woman.

    A President of the United States has been killed. Somehow Lyndon Johnson doesn't think it is a security thread.
    There is not a single record of Johnson’s attempting to contact the National Command Center, the White House Situation Room, the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense or asking about the location of the officer with the missile launch codes. Despite his initial remark, Johnson did not make a single call or contact that would indicate he was worried about a Communist conspiracy or national security. (86)

    The number of people involved was extensive and one of the greatest mysteries. In the planning and execution we are probably talking about 30-40 people and many more in the cover-up operation. Even though most only knew a part, there are probably close to 20 people who knew most of the grand plan. Most of them are no longer alive. George H.W. Bush is still alive and mostlikely one of those people.

    Aftermath - Oswald did it

    We get an insight into the investigation by the recorded conversation (87) that took place between Johnson and Hoover on 23rd November, 1963:

    J. Edgar Hoover: I just wanted to let you know of a development which I think is very important in connection with this case - this man in Dallas (Lee Harvey Oswald). We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. We have just discovered the place where the gun was purchased and the shipment of the gun from Chicago to Dallas, to a post office box in Dallas, to a man - no, to a woman by the name of "A. Hidell."... We had it flown up last night, and our laboratory here is making an examination of it.

    Lyndon B. Johnson: Yes, I told the Secret Service to see that that got taken care of.

    J. Edgar Hoover: That's right. We have the gun and we have the bullet. There was only one full bullet that was found. That was on the stretcher that the President was on. It apparently had fallen out when they massaged his heart, and we have that one. We have what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification. As soon as we finish the testing of the gun for fingerprints ... we will then be able to test the one bullet we have with the gun. But the important thing is that this gun was bought in Chicago on a money order. Cost twenty-one dollars, and it seems almost impossible to think that for twenty-one dollars you could kill the President of the United States.

    Lyndon B. Johnson: Now, who is A. Hidell?

    J. Edgar Hoover: A. Hidell is an alias that this man has used on other occasions, and according to the information we have from the house in which he was living - his mother - he kept a rifle like this wrapped up in a blanket which he kept in the house. On the morning that this incident occurred down there - yesterday - the man who drove him to the building where they work, the building from where the shots came, said that he had a package wrapped up in paper... But the important thing at the time is that the location of the purchase of the gun by a money order apparently to the Klein Gun Company in Chicago - we were able to establish that last night.

    Lyndon B. Johnson: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?

    J. Edgar Hoover: No, that's one angle that's very confusing, for this reason - we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there. We do have a copy of a letter which was written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy here in Washington, inquiring as well as complaining about the harassment of his wife and the questioning of his wife by the FBI. Now, of course, that letter information - we process all mail that goes to the Soviet embassy. It's a very secret operation. No mail is delivered to the embassy without being examined and opened by us, so that we know what they receive... The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction... Now if we can identify this man who was at the... Soviet embassy in Mexico City... This man Oswald has still denied everything. He doesn't know anything about anything, but the gun thing, of course, is a definite trend.

    Lyndon B. Johnson: It definitely established that he - the same gun killed the policeman?

    J. Edgar Hoover: That is an entirely different gun. We also have that gun...

    Lyndon B. Johnson: You think he might have two ?

    J. Edgar Hoover: Yes, yes, he had two guns... The one that killed the President was found on the sixth floor in the building from which it had been fired. I think that the bullets were fired from the fifth floor, and the three shells that were found were found on the fifth floor. But he apparently went upstairs to have fired the gun and throw the gun away and then went out. He went down to this theater. There at the theater was where he had the gun battle with the police officer.

    Lyndon B. Johnson: I wonder if you will get me a little synopsis and let me have what developments come your way during the day and try to get to me before we close up for the day. (88) (89)

    The public sentiment in the US was that a great sorrow came over the people. There was no outrage, so they couldn't use it to start a war even if they wanted. The people were grieving for the loss of their President. The attempt of using it against Cuba is called off. The nation was in mourning.

    On November 29th, 1963 George H.W. Bush informs J. Edgar Hoover that: (90)
    ... in the Cuban community there is a group that might want to capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid on Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U.S. policy, which is not true.

    Aftermath - The assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald

    On November 24, at 11:21 am CST, after 15 hours of undocumented interrogations, while he was being transferred via car to a nearby jail, Oswald was shot and killed in the basement of the Dallas police jail, in front of live TV cameras, by Jack Ruby a Dallas nightclub owner with friends and acquaintances in the U.S. mafia and a former employee of Richard Nixon.

    Aftermath - Warren Commission

    The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known unofficially as The Warren Commission, was established on November 29, 1963 by Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the assassination of the U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

    The Commission took its unofficial name—the Warren Commission—from its chairman, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.

    Members:
  • Earl Warren
    Earl Warren was very reluctant to be a member of the Commission, but later it was revealled that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. (91)
  • Hale Boggs
    Hale Boggs died 1972 in an airplane crash under mysterious circumstances (92)
  • John Sherman Cooper
    Cooper objected to the magic bullet theory, saying that "there was no evidence". (93)
  • Allen Dulles: One of the most mysterious appointments. Allen W. Dulles was fired by John F. Kennedy in 1961 over Operation Northwoods in particular and the Cuban fiascos in general.
  • Gerald Ford
    Gerald Ford was also the Vice President under Richard Nixon and gave Nixon a a full, free, and absolute pardon for the Watergate scandal. (94) Gerald Ford was later forced to admit the Warren Report was fictionalized
  • John J. McCloy
    Worked for Standard Oil, Ford Foundation, Chase Manhattan Bank. Blocked the execution of Nazis (95) and later pardonned convicted Nazis including Fritz Thyssen - one of Prescott Bush's business partners (96). In 1956 McCloy attacked the suggestion made by Adlai Stevenson that there should be a nuclear test ban. Was part of the United Fruit Company together with Allen Dulles
  • Richard Russell, Jr.
    Personal and good friend of Lyndon Johnson with many connections to Texas Oil and the Armaments industry. (97)

    The commission concluded that only three bullets were fired during the assassination, and that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three bullets from the Texas School Book Depository behind the motorcade. It noted that three empty shells were found in the sixth floor sniper's nest in the book depository, and the rifle was found (with one live bullet left in its chamber) on the sixth floor balanced unsupported on its bottom edges. (98)

    Well what can you say about that except that that part of the cover-up was really pathetic. (See also: 9/11 Commission Report)

    Aftermath - Vietnam War

    Shortly after taking over the presidency, Lyndon Johnson began esacalating the war in Vietnam.

    On 26 November 1963, McGeorge Bundy rewrote National Security Memorandum 273. Four days after the assassination Lyndon Johnson passed a memorandum which "authorized planning for specific covert operations, graduated in intensity, against the DRV (North Vietnam)" (99). The withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam as proposed in NSAM 263 were reversed and the escalation of the War in Vietnam started.

    On January 1964, NSAM 288 was signed and reaffirms the commitment and explains in more definitive terms that the United States must become personally involved in order to keep South Vietnam from falling to communism. (100)

    On August 5, 1964, American newspapers reported that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had fired on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC, to say that no such attacked had occurred - but to no avail...

    Knowing well that the reports were false, Johnson immediately ordered airstrikes on North Vietnam in retaliation for an attack that never occurred...

    In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won the Presidency in his own right with 61 percent of the vote and the widest popular margin in American history - more than 15,000,000 votes. (101)

    On April 7, 1965 Lyndon Johnson ordered Operation Rolling Thunder (102). An operation which dropped over 1,000,000 bombs on Vietnam more than ever before in the history of mankind. The US military also started using napalm.
    “Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine,” said Kim Phuc, known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. “Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius.” (103)

    Lyndon Johnson was partially responsible for the death of 1 US President, approx. 60,000 US citizens and approx. 1,700,000 Vietnamese citizens. (104)

    Lyndon Johnson was never held reponsible for any of his scandals, assassination of a US President, crimes against humanity and starting an illegal war under false pretences (See also: George W. Bush) and died at his ranch of a heart attack in Texas on January 22nd, 1973. Texas declared August 27 Lyndon Baines Johnson Day, a legal state holiday to honor Lyndon Johnson. (105)

    Sources and notes:
    1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoperation40.htm
    2. http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/pigs-bay.html
    3. http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkcubabaypigs.shtml
    4. http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/ArticGiron2.html
    5. http://www.american-buddha.com/invisiblegov.3.htm
    6. http://www.sumeria.net/politics/kennedy.html
    7. http://www.internetpirate.com/barbaraj.htm
    8. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/EJR.htm
    9. E. Howard Hunt, Give Us This Day (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1973), p. 214.
    10. Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-63 (New York: Edward Burlingame Books, 1991), p. 89.
    11. http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/pigs-bay.html
    12. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB29/
    13. Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy (New York: Bantam, 1966), p. 329.
    14. http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BushCh08-2&Entity=HarrimanWA
    15. Georgie Anne Geyer, Guerilla Prince (Boston: Little, Brown, 1991).
    16. http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BushCh08-2&Entity=HarrimanWA
    17. E. Howard Hunt, Give Us This Day, pp. 13-14.
    18. http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/operation_mongoose.htm
    19. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmongoose.htm
    20. See also $13 million (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmongoose.htm) There are contradictory statements about the budget for JM WAVE.
    21. http://members.aol.com/bblum6/cuba.htm
    22. Richard D. Mahoney, Sons and Brothers.
    23. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKzrrifle.htm
    24. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKshackley.htm
    25. http://www.jfk.org/Research/Cuba/Mongoose_Plots.htm
    26. Warren Hinckle and William W. Turner, The Fish is Red (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 112 ff.
    27. http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BushCh08-2&Entity=HarrimanWA
    28. http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
    29. idem
    30. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=5048
    31. http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
    32. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027%20Ciphered%20Telegram%20No.%2020076.pdf
    33. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/baytape.htm
    34. http://www.vce.com/crisis.html
    35. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/docs.htm
    36. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/06/papers_reveal_jfk_efforts_on_vietnam/?page=1
    37. http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article/0,2322,320,00.html
    38. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWvietnam.htm
    39. http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BushCh08-2&Entity=HarrimanWA
    40. http://john-f-kennedy.net/nsam263.htm
    41. http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BushCh08-2&Entity=HarrimanWA
    42. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Military-industrial_complex
    43. http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BushCh08-2&Entity=HarrimanWA
    44. Robert A. Caro, Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power (1982)
    45. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3681
    46. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm
    47. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t565.html
    48. http://www.the7thfire.com/bush8b.htm
    49. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm
    50. http://www.sumeria.net/politics/cia-bush.html
    51. http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/LATimes.html
    52. http://www.newsmakingnews.com/archive7,24,00,7,29,00.htm
    53. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmongoose.htm
    54. http://www.ciadrugs.com/
    55. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmarcello.htm
    56. Martin Luther King, Why I oppose the war in Vietnam, Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA, (April 30, 1967)
    57. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem
    58. Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (Prima Publishing, 2001), pp. 334-335.
    59. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon2/pent6.htm
    60. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1037
    61. idem
    62. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerB.htm
    63. Joachim Joesten, The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson (1968)
    64. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2310
    65. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKestes.htm
    66. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Sol_Estes
    67. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKestes.htm
    68. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Sol_Estes
    69. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKestes.htm
    70. http://hnn.us/articles/4504.html
    71. The Men Who Killed Kennedy can be watched at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk (it consists of 15 chapters)
    72. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjonesP.htm
    73. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsmathers.htm
    74. W. Penn Jones Jr, Texas Midlothian Mirror (31st July, 1969)
    75. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2310
    76. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm
    77. idem
    78. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t565.html
    79. Larry Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, (2003) pages 256-57
    80. http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/excoxral.html
    81. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm
    82. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/southknoll.htm
    83. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit
    84. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush2.htm
    85. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm
    86. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2310
    87. While LBJ was Vice President used an Edison Voicewriter to record his telephone conversations. After he became President he began to use a Dictaphone Dictabelt. The dictating equipment used to record the conversations was attached to the telephone line. Johnson signalled to the secretary when he wanted a conversation recorded, and she pressed a switch located at her desk to activate the machine. It appears from the content and nature of the recordings that the secretaries often left the machine running and recorded many conversations inadvertently.
    88. Taped telephone conversation between J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Baines Johnson (10.01 on 23rd November, 1963).
    89. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2310
    90. http://www.ciajfk.com/home4.html
    91. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwarren.htm
    92. http://www.internetpirate.com/boggs.htm
    93. http://cdo.co.uk/jfk/people.php?show=john_sherman_cooper
    94. http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740060.htm
    95. http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Nazi%20Connection%20to%20JFK%20Assass.html
    96. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccloyJ.htm
    97. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3681
    98. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission
    99. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/KennedyVietnam1971/KennedyVietnam1971.htm
    100. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
    101. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson
    102. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/36_l_johnson/l_johnson_foreign.html
    103. http://www.advance.uconn.edu/2004/041108/04110803.htm
    104. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
    105. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Baines_Johnson_Day
  • Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:02 AM
    Response to Reply #86
    90. Another superb compilation Doc!
    This really puts a lot of information in one place. It disturbs me to see how deep Johnson was in this. How did our country go so wrong, so fast?
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:21 AM
    Response to Reply #90
    91. Thanks. It's even more worrying that it four future presidents were in on it
    And that shows the tendency to promote the guilty in order to keep the secrets safe. Especially George H.W. Bush used his involvement as a fast track which eventually lead him and his dimwit son to become president.

    I think that it has to do with a willing to cover up despite not knowing the facts either (and not even willing to know the fact). The clearest example is J. Edgar Hoover who played a very important role in the overall coverup, however it is apparant that even Edna didn't know that much on the morning of November 23 and was merely flabbergasted at the ridiculous mission of having to link Oswald to the JFK assassination. It is the tendency to coverup despite knowing very little which is the root problem and you can bet that the fast majority of people involved in the JFK assassination knew very little about the how, who and what and therefore large scale conspiracies are swept under the rug time and time again.

    I know it's a very long story, but it is a multitude of reasons which lead to individuals to participate and make it happen. It's not one reason or one group, but more (high ranking) individuals in many groups who decided to go ahead with the plan. Johnson being pushed into the corner with his scandals was a vital ingredient, because having a president involved was really necessary in order to keep the coup d'etat hidden. The other conspirators quickly learned that having such a president was very positive because it allowed their ideas to become reality, hence the continuation of the story with Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush and currently George W. Bush. So the first thing needed is to elect a president which can lead the country forward again... and that's upto the people.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:58 AM
    Response to Reply #86
    99. The Guilty Men
    Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 10:28 AM by seemslikeadream
    :hi:

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.1 The Smoking Gun, seg.1
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=bNTeQ9ckmD8

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.1 The Smoking Gun, seg.2
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.1 The Smoking Gun, seg.3
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmMXfBgjsh0

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.1 The Smoking Gun, seg.4
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=IO5PAmCsw0I

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.1 The Smoking Gun, seg.5
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=WMJMqbWJLQI

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.2 The Love Affair, seg.1
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.2 The Love Affair, seg.2
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zRLDm7YT25w

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.2 The Love Affair, seg.3
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=uBbe0jexWn4

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.2 The Love Affair, seg.4
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=oGNyprupDTU

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.2 The Love Affair, seg.5
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=AZyJ1APE6Lc

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.3 The Guilty Men, seg.1
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.3 The Guilty Men, seg.2
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.3 The Guilty Men, seg.3
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5fE

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.3 The Guilty Men, seg.4
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-4QXzNBno

    TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.3 The Guilty Men, seg.5
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=7mzZGK9tNyM
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:36 PM
    Response to Reply #86
    115. This enough for you, dumkopf?
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:36 AM
    Response to Reply #84
    88. bay of pigs...
    is not as important as the team behind the op itself... operation 40 is the team...

    my working theory is as follows:

    operation 40=domestic Gladio
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Beerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:58 AM
    Response to Original message
    89. Why not?
    :shrug:
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:07 AM
    Response to Original message
    94. Move along, nothing to see here.
    because it would implicate the Knights of Malta (SMOM) in the assasination, and since many upper level CIA are SMOM, guilt by association.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:28 AM
    Response to Original message
    95. Three guesses and the first two don't count?
    Why do people hide things?
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:39 PM
    Response to Reply #95
    117. It's Ernest Partridge's hilariously incisive "sniffer dog" syndrome", isn' t it?
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:49 AM
    Response to Original message
    96. The CIA double wave off.
    :hi:
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Snarkturian Clone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:23 AM
    Response to Original message
    101. How long before JFK truthers and 911 Truthers
    merge into one entity? They could start claiming that oswald was a hologram.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:27 PM
    Response to Reply #101
    127. It already has happened, see black op radio
    Jim Marrs and Jim Fetzer are all over it.

    http://www.blackopradio.com/
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:25 AM
    Response to Original message
    102. It's got nothing to do with Poppy Bush!
    So stop thinking that!
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:36 PM
    Response to Reply #102
    116. You're right
    Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 12:40 PM by formercia
    Poppy didn't get his Knighthood until Central America.

    Poppy just cleaned up after the JFK job. He didn't get top illing until later.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:31 PM
    Response to Reply #102
    129. Maybe he didn't take the shot. But...
    Someone had to have planned this whole thing. You don't just climb to the top of the watch tower and take the shot. There had to be witnesses (many, many witnesses in fact) and it had to have been planned in such a way that no two people could tell the same story about it.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:42 PM
    Original message
    Only being sarcastic...
    I'm sure it is because of Poppy. Not that he did it, but he was involved.

    Who the hell doesn't remember where they were that day? That guy's hiding something. There's no question about that.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:55 PM
    Response to Original message
    149. No doubt.
    I cant wait until he dies and we finally get to find out all the evil shit that he was involved in. It'll be like the Nuremburg Trials after WWII.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:57 PM
    Response to Reply #149
    151. Would be better if he could be punished...
    *sigh*
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:59 PM
    Response to Reply #151
    152. There's a special place in hell reserved for him.
    He can join Jerry Falwell and Ken Lay.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    jakefrep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:32 AM
    Response to Original message
    103. Tag, You're It!
    :P
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:13 AM
    Response to Original message
    107. because they have nothing to hide and no shenannigans whatsoever are exposed
    Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 11:14 AM by librechik
    wait...
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 11:45 AM
    Response to Original message
    109. Because the Warren Commission Report was a bunch of lies and many of US know our BFEE eom
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:29 PM
    Response to Reply #109
    113. The CIA liason to the Warren Commision was SMOM
    Wonder why.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:26 PM
    Response to Reply #113
    142. We have had two US Presidents that were FBI informants Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford
    Nixon and Hoover during HUAC/McCarthy plus COINTELPRO's, Ford kept Hoover up to date on Warren Commission plus COINTELPRO related info.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:12 PM
    Response to Reply #142
    159. Trying to stay on Hoover's good side
    Hoover was one of the top SMOM at the time. He negotiated the deal with the Mafia in that if they helped the US take Sicily, they could have it after the War. The italians are still trying to root them out there.

    You didn't want to get on Hoover's bad side.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    everydayis911 Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:40 PM
    Response to Original message
    118. Yes Nothing to Hide
    The fact that Daddy Bush was in Dallas and at the school book depository that day is nothing than a mere coincidence. Just donating some books from Jr. The fact that the secret service weren't there to protect JFK in his motorcade just a mistake. The fact that LBJ, Nixion, Ruby, and I think J Edgar Hoover met the night before in Texas to discuss the assassination had nothing to do with it. The fact that JFK was going to eliminate the CIA because of the Bay of Pigs debacle had nothing to do with it. Oh and that little thing called the Vietnam war that JKF was going to stop also had nothing to do with it either. And I bet if they look hard enough those same men wouldn't have anything to do with the RFK assassination either. Nothing to see here. For more lies about how the CIA and others weren't involved check out You Tube and type in LBJ Mistress. Whole lotta nothing going on 11/21/63.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 12:52 PM
    Response to Reply #118
    119. It was also very interesting to hear on a TV programme here made by
    SAS body-guard specialists that the nearest agent/bodyguard to Reagan, when he was shot, was crucially too far away. Shades of the instruction given to the agents on JFK's limousine to drop off the back, before the scene of the assassination.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:02 PM
    Response to Reply #118
    186. About the Bay of Pigs...


    http://www.bushnews.com/family.htm

    1961 According to the Realist, CIA official Fletcher Prouty delivers three Navy ships to agents in Guatemala to be used in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Prouty claims he delivered the ships to a CIA agent named George Bush. Agent Bush named the ships the Barbara, Houston and Zapata.
    Bay of Pigs invasion fails. Right-wingers blame Kennedy for failure to provide air cover. CIA loses 15 men, another 1100 are imprisoned.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 12:39 PM
    Response to Reply #186
    193. Deleted sub-thread
    Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
     
    Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:42 PM
    Response to Original message
    132. Simple. Poppy is still alive. nt
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 01:49 PM
    Response to Original message
    134. Because they killed him.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 02:41 PM
    Response to Original message
    145. Proud to give this teh 50th Rec and A kick definetly a bookmarked thread for me to keep!
    If only we would have a real news media that would cover the things we see here in this thread we could win back our country. Great post's by many with just a few trolls calling it all baloney.



    Watch the driver looking back waiting for the head shot before doing his job!
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Mark D. Donating Member (420 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:55 PM
    Response to Original message
    166. Who's Behind It All
    I too believe LBJ was in on it. Prescott and George Bush Sr. and the CIA.
    Again, these are the cats paws. We all look at who worked for them. Like
    a well paid Lee Harvey Oswald, the Osama of that day, working for them.
    Hired to shoot into the air with a rifle (that will explain the guy who'd
    been shot far away ahead of the motorcade by an unidentified bullet).

    All so they can distract from the brilliant system set up likely in
    the President's car itself with another nearby, well disguised and
    silencer-using shooter in the 'grassy knoll' to make sure that a
    job planned was a job completed. How the hell does a man in the
    adjacent building with one rifle/angle shoot a man in both the
    front or the back of the head. WTF? This is so damn obvious.

    Proof? Despite hours of footage and evidence that builds a case, the
    nay-sayers don't believe. We have to change the argument just as the
    argument was done above, how Oswald couldn't do it for the simplest
    of reasons, a man shot in both the front and back of the head by a
    guy who's best aim would have been the side or an angle, but not
    a straight shot through the front of the head or back of neck.

    It reminds me of the 9/11 story & how people just accept it, as that.
    Would the most powerful military might on Earth allow the low, slow
    flying plane (also a big, easy target) to slowly fly into the epicenter
    of it's national defenses without one plane in the air to defend it??
    NOT UNLESS IT WANTED IT TO HAPPEN. It's really that simple also.
    A little kid with a squirt gun aimed at the building, in a passing car,
    would probably be blown to oblivion. But a slow jet, long tracked &
    clearly aimed at the Pentagon, yeah, we could NEVER stop that!

    But I digress. The folks looked at. From the Bush/CIA/LBJ folks & more.
    Even those who think the folks desiring war with Cuba or Viet Nam. You
    make good points and these are small part of it. But who benefits from
    war, the greatest source of debt? Bankers. Who did Kennedy stand up to?
    A move no other president did since Woodrow Wilson (and only well after
    he did their bidding to start US involvement in World War 1)? The very
    few, powerful, globalist bankers. Nicknamed 'illuminati'... as we know.

    Please see Zeitgeist Part 3'. See how it begins. Kennedy not only speaks
    of them, but as the great motivator as he was, asks for the help of the
    US. This was what they feared. Wilson talked about it when he was no
    longer able to do anything but talk. Kennedy had the influence, and
    the reach to make it happen, to beat back the bankers, to reclaim
    a non-debt based, non-privatized US currency. So they paid any &
    all of the parties involved generously, as they did Booth who had
    admitted he was paid by financial powers in Europe, to off Lincoln.
    The last president to successfully hold globalist bankers at bay.

    It's fine to try and figure out which dead person in his circle or
    in the CIA did what. But that's just going after the spider's webs
    that ensnared him, Lincoln and Garfield. The webs that started the
    wars, caused every recession and depression. You don't stop that
    spider, you're not going to solve anything. They dared to try &
    stop the spider and they got caught when everyone just idled on
    by ignorant to the spider's existence. Andrew Jackson was able
    to keep them at bay for a long time, but they found their way
    in. I have no doubt that they are ultimately behind all of it.

    Don't let me discourage anyone. Building a case means getting the
    suspects (the web) to find your way to the spider. But it helps if
    people don't just stop at a few people in politics. There is more.

    Possible suspects, maybe more than one involved, from the Bush's
    to CIA to the mob to LBJ to the anti-Cuba folks to the war profit
    folks to racists & corporations. You find different views in them
    You find different rationale and reasons why, but one thing will
    remain. They can all be bought. Who had enough money then?
    What can buy such power? Who controls the money? Bankers.
    They didn't 'do it'. They didn't have to. People were hired...
    Those with bones to pick most closely involved made great
    distraction from the puppet masters behind all of this...
    Behind it all. Other assassinations. War. You name it.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:27 PM
    Response to Original message
    168. Also, why were Scoop Jackson's papers made classified during W.'s reign?
    I know this isn't related to JFK, but it is related to the Neo-Cons and their plans (since the 1970s) to wage war on any country that had the nerve to nationalize its oil.

    There is too much damn secrecy in DC. We got more open government after Watergate, but under Cheney it is all going the wrong way again.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:57 PM
    Response to Reply #168
    188. Like Venezuela?
    IIRC, they nationalized their oil reserves in the early 70's. US oil companies were very upset.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:32 PM
    Response to Original message
    177. They're doing their part to keep the surrounding conspiracy market alive. -n/t
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:22 PM
    Response to Original message
    187. 36 hours.
    Must be a record. (k)
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:54 PM
    Response to Reply #187
    189. Bobby Kennedy: America's first assassination conspiracy theorist
    Hey, RUMMYisFROSTED! Where the heck you been? This one stuck around longer, IMS:

    From Salon.com founder David Talbot comes a new book that examines the Kennedy Administration. In his book, he reveals a most important part of our nation's history that Corporate McPravda seems to have missed*:

    Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy didn't believe the Warren Commission whitewash.



    Bobby Kennedy: America's first assassination conspiracy theorist

    May 13, 2007
    BY DAVID TALBOT

    One of the most intriguing mysteries about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that darkest of American labyrinths, is why his brother Robert F. Kennedy apparently did nothing to investigate the crime. Bobby Kennedy was, after all, not just the attorney general of the United States at the time of the assassination -- he was his brother's devoted partner, the man who took on the administration's most grueling assignments, from civil rights to organized crime to Cuba, the hottest Cold War flash point of its day. But after the burst of gunfire in downtown Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, ended this unique partnership, Bobby Kennedy seemed lost in a fog of grief, refusing to discuss the assassination with the Warren Commission and telling friends he had no heart for an aggressive investigation. "What difference does it make?" he would say. "It won't bring him back."

    But Bobby Kennedy was a complex man, and his years in Washington had taught him to keep his own counsel and proceed in a subterranean fashion. What he said in public about Dallas was not the full story. Privately, RFK -- who had made his name in the 1950s as a relentless investigator of the underside of American power -- was consumed by the need to know the real story about his brother's assassination. This fire seized him on the afternoon of Nov. 22, as soon as FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, a bitter political enemy, phoned to say -- almost with pleasure, thought Bobby -- that the president had been shot. And the question of who killed his brother continued to haunt Kennedy until the day he too was gunned down, on June 5, 1968.

    Because of his proclivity for operating in secret, RFK did not leave behind a documentary record of his inquiries into his brother's assassination. But it is possible to retrace his investigative trail, beginning with the afternoon of Nov. 22, when he frantically worked the phones at Hickory Hill -- his Civil War-era mansion in McLean, Va. -- and summoned aides and government officials to his home. Lit up with the clarity of shock, the electricity of adrenaline, Bobby Kennedy constructed the outlines of the crime that day -- a crime, he immediately concluded, that went far beyond Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24-year-old ex-Marine arrested shortly after the assassination. Robert Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist.

    SNIP...

    A stunning outburst

    Meanwhile, as Lyndon Johnson -- a man with whom he had a storied antagonistic relationship -- flew east from Dallas to assume the powers of the presidency, Bobby Kennedy used his fleeting authority to ferret out the truth. After hearing his brother had died at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Kennedy phoned CIA headquarters, just down the road in Langley, where he often began his day, stopping there to work on Cuba-related business. Bobby's phone call to Langley on the afternoon of Nov. 22 was a stunning outburst. Getting a ranking official on the phone -- whose identity is still unknown -- Kennedy confronted him in a voice vibrating with fury and pain. "Did your outfit have anything to do with this horror?" Kennedy erupted.

    SNIP...

    Kennedy had another revealing phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. Speaking with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it." Who did Kennedy mean? By then Oswald had been arrested in Dallas. The CIA and its anti-Castro client groups were already trying to connect the alleged assassin to the Havana regime. But as Kennedy's blunt remark to Williams makes clear, the attorney general wasn't buying it. Recent evidence suggests that Bobby Kennedy had heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald long before it exploded in news bulletins around the world, and he connected it with the government's underground war on Castro. With Oswald's arrest in Dallas, Kennedy apparently realized that the government's clandestine campaign against Castro had boomeranged at his brother.

    CONTINUED...

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/383811,CST-CONT-kennedy13.article



    No matter what those who peddle the Big Lie think, the Truth will set us free.

    *... or overlooked or diminished or ignored.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 12:26 AM
    Response to Reply #189
    190. I believe in reading.
    Thanks for letting me borrow your book.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 06:14 PM
    Response to Reply #189
    196. I've read that the book "Farewell America" was mostly the result of...

    Robert Kennedy's and others' secret investigations. The author is a fabricated name representing various groups. It's distribution was suppressed in the US after RFK's assassination.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 06:18 PM
    Response to Original message
    197. WARNING: with all the disappearing CT threads today....

    I would suggest backing up this one. :tinfoilhat:
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:22 AM
    Response to Reply #197
    198. That is a great idea.... one I had 20 or so posts in vanished
    I couldn't even find it in Google 'cache'
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 01:37 AM
    Response to Reply #198
    201. I even posted a stupid little question in the 9-11 dungeon...

    wondering what happened to that thread. It got a few rather uninteresting responses then *poof*! Gone. From the 9-11 dungeon no less!!
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 04:07 AM
    Response to Reply #198
    203. Google is becoming more and more censored
    Example:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1927518

    This thread was about N987SA. The easiest way to check for reports when the story broke was by searching for N987SA. This thread appeared in the Top 20 of Google after a couple of hours the story broke. Later that day it vanished completely when you searched for N987SA, however if you search for an excerpt it does appear (so google has indexed the thread)

    A couple of days later softlabhennef appears and adds some nice information to the thread and ... google indexes the new posts. A couple of days later: it disappeared from google again.

    And you can still see it:

    45. Democratic Underground Forums - Printer friendly page, topic ID ...
    "Flight records N987SA extracted from FAA database: http://www.softlabhennef.mynetcologne.de/CIA-Flights/N987SA.zip Richmor also operated with a twin plane, ..."
    www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=389&topic_id=1927518&mesg_id=1958525

    But wait a minute, how can that single printer preview be indexed without the matching master thread. It should have put the master thread there as well, however that one vanished from searches on N987SA despite being in their cache.



    There are plenty of other stories which have disappeared. If you want to see the difference, use other search engines and notice how many sites are currently black listed by google using specific phrases.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 01:40 AM
    Response to Original message
    202. because it was a coup
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 11:57 PM
    Response to Original message
    216. Because Poppy is still alive?
    That'd be my guess.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:31 AM
    Response to Original message
    217. The CIA has had 44 years to make its case and it's failed.
    The only thing keeping the truth from being openly expressed is bribery and terror, making the CIA without doubt the most dangerous if not the only bona-fide terrorist organization operating in the US.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 10:56 AM
    Response to Reply #217
    219. In '63, CIA agents were working toward the Truth and got kicked off the case.
    John Whitten led the team. Then, Richard Helms put another guy in charge. Here's the story...



    The good spy:

    How the quashing of an honest C.I.A. investigator helped launch 40 years of JFK conspiracy theories and cynicism about the Feds


    Jefferson Morley
    Washington Monthly

    It was 1:30 in the morning of Nov. 23, 1963, and John F. Kennedy had been dead for 12 hours. His corpse was being dressed at Bethesda Naval Hospital, touched and retouched to conceal the ugly bullet wounds. In Dallas, the F.B.I. had Lee Harvey Oswald in custody.

    The lights were still on at the Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters in Langley, Va. John Whitten, the agency's 43-year-old chief of covert operations for Mexico and Central America, hung up the phone with has Mexico City station chief. He had just learned something stunning: A C.I.A. surveillance team in Mexico City had photographed Oswald at the Cuban consulate in early October, an indication that the agency might be able to quickly uncover the suspect's background.

    At 1:36 am, Whitten sent a cable to Mexico City: "Send staffer with all photos of Oswald to HQ on the next available flight. Call Mr. Whitten at 652-6827." Within 24 hours Whitten was leading the C.I.A. investigation into the assassination. After two weeks of reviewing classified cables, he had learned that Oswald's pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially has attempt to shoot a right-wing JFK critic, a diary of has efforts to confront anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and has public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. For this investigatory zeal, Whitten was taken off the case.

    C.I.A. Deputy Director of Plans Richard Helms blocked Whitten's efforts, effectively ending any hope of a comprehensive agency investigation of the accused assassin, a 24-year-old ex-Marine, who had sojourned in the Soviet Union and spent time as a leftist activist in New Orleans. In particular, Oswald's Cuba-related political life, which Whitten wished to pursue, went unexplored by the C.I.A. The blueribbon Warren commission appointed by President Johnson concluded in September 1964 that Oswald alone and unaided had killed Kennedy. But over the years, as information which the commission's report had not accounted for leaked out, many would come to see the commission as a cover-up, in part because it failed to assign any motive to Oswald, in part because the government's pre-assassination surveillance of Oswald had been more intense than the government ever cared to disclose, and finally because its reconstruction of the crime sequence was flawed.

    Both the story of Oswald and the C.I.A., and the way in which it leaked out in bits and pieces fueled a generation of conspiracy-minded authors, journalists, and filmmakers who mined Richard Helms's dubious legacy--a rich vein of ominous ambiguity and unanswered questions about one of the most jarring events of modern American history. The untimely end to Whitten's investigation, which prevented a public airing of what the government actually knew, also contributed to a generation of public cynicism about Washington--to a national mythology of skullduggery, and the suspicion that secret agencies in Washington were up to no good and the truth never gets out. In the decades since Kennedy's death, the "rogue C.I.A. assassin" has become a stock Hollywood character, his villainy engrained in spy movies and the popular culture.

    Whitten's story, told here for the first time, has an uncomfortable new resonance today, as the Bush administration tries to thwart investigation into, among other things, what our intelligence agencies knew about Saddam's WMD programs before we went to war with Iraq. Whitten was a rare C.I.A. hero in the Kennedy assassination story whose personal odyssey is a poignant but unsettling reminder that inquiries into a national tragedy can be compromised early on. Intelligence mandarins, seeking to protect their positions, can override independent subordinates. Official deceptions can take decades to unravel. Embarrassing secrets, however, don't simply go away; eventually, they filter out, as the Kennedy case shows, often doing more harm to the country than they would have had the public known the truth earlier.

    CONTINUED...

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_12_35/ai_111897441



    Most in CIA, as well as the Pentagon and all the other government agencies, are good people. The leadership has all too-often been, er, compromised.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 12:09 PM
    Response to Reply #219
    220. That story sounds familiar.
    The FBI has apparently had a lot of separations since the start of the current admin. Someone I know drove by a hotel a year or so ago with a banner hanging in front saying "Welcome Former FBI Agents"! Not exactly scientific evidence but still.

    p.s. hey Octafish, a couple of days ago you posted a link to a list of CIA spin techniques used to control criticism of the Warren Commission. I looked for it this morning but that thread seems to have disappeared. Do you still have the link? Thanks!
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 12:17 PM
    Response to Reply #220
    221. CIA Instructions to Media Assets
    This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

    CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.
    RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

    1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

    2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

    3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

    a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?) and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

    b. To employ propaganda assets to (negate) and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher (?) article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

    4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

    a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

    b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

    c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

    d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

    e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

    f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

    g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

    5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

    http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 12:29 PM
    Response to Reply #221
    222. That's it.
    Thanks DrDebug! Great summary up above (#86) too! :hi:
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 01:12 PM
    Response to Reply #222
    224. A Retired CIA Officer Speaks Candidly About Lee Harvey Oswald
    Jefferson Morley also wrote "THE GOOD SPY" article about John WHITTEN.

    Here's more from Morley on Whitten:



    WHAT JANE ROMAN SAID

    A Retired CIA Officer Speaks Candidly About Lee Harvey Oswald


    By Jefferson Morley

    People who say there's nothing new to be learned about the Kennedy assassination don't know the story of John Whitten.

    1. Introduction
    2. The Interview
    3. ‘A keen interest in Oswald’
    4. The Dead End
    5. The ‘Scelso Deposition’: What John Witten Said
    6. Dick Helms’ Man in Miami
    Click here to read the transcript of the interview with CIA Counterintelligence officer Jane Roman.


    The ‘Scelso Deposition’: What John Whitten Said

    Over the years, my Jane Roman story became the subject of intermittent, heated exchanges on alt.assassination.jfk, the most informative JFK chat group on the Internet. In these discussions, people who didn’t know me, had never spoken to me (or to Jane Roman) called me a fraud, a failure, a faker, and a conspiracy theorist. Others suggested I might be on to something. Oliver Stone described me a “very conservative reporter” which I took as a compliment.

    For the most part, I stayed out of the online discussions and away from the JFK assassination conferences. I disliked the low ratio of new facts to old opinions. I stayed in touch with John Newman who continued teaching at the University of Maryland while writing a book about U.S. policy toward Cuba in the 1950s and 1960s. We took comfort from new evidence that corroborated what Roman had said.

    For example, the JFK Assassination Records Review board released several chapters from an unpublished memoir written by Win Scott, the man who had been serving as chief of the CIA’s Mexico City station in 1963. Scott, renowned among colleagues for his photographic memory, wrote that Oswald was the object of “keen interest” from the moment he arrived in Mexico City.

    That was the exact same phrase that Roman had used and it contrasted sharply with the CIA’s official story that Oswald was a passing stranger of no particular interest.

    More corroboration came in May 1996 when the JFK Records Review Board released a sworn deposition given by a retired CIA official known only as “John Scelso.” Scelso was a cover name for John Whitten, a former senior staffer in the Western Hemisphere division of the covert operations  directorate.  Whitten’s identity was so sensitive that it was illegal to publish it until October 2002, when the CIA finally declassified his name.

    People who say there’s nothing new to be learned about the Kennedy assassination don’t know the story of John Whitten. A native of Maryland’s Eastern Shore, he fought for the U.S. Army in Europe during World War Ii. He began working on embassy security and became a career CIA man. Brilliant and decisive, he rose in the government’s civil service earning the highest possible GS-17 ranking, and a reputation for cracking espionage puzzles. He won a medal for pioneering the use of the polygraph for the intelligence community. In November 1963, he was trusted. 

    CONTINUED w links n docs...

    http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_5.htm



    Thanks to both of you.

    DU is a Teaching Machine.

    A Truth Machine.

    You are the Best!
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 03:21 PM
    Response to Reply #224
    226. Where's Dumbo Dudesville? Lost his tongue.
    Edited on Sat Oct-27-07 03:22 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:40 PM
    Response to Reply #226
    233. More name-calling???
    Predictable.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 05:14 PM
    Response to Reply #224
    227. Someone is putting a lot of pieces together....
    http://www.walrus.com/~jklotz/watergat.htm



    ...

    But if we acknowledge a deliberate CIA role in the driving of
    Nixon from office, we are suddenly confronted by yet another
    deeper, black strata of suspicion. It is a dark underground
    continuum of personalities and events that stretches from the Bay
    of Pigs, through the tragedy at Dallas to Watergate and beyond.
    Running through these events is an unholy alliance of organized
    crime, Cubans dispossessed by Castro and the CIA. The revelations
    of the CIA's involvement with organized crime are a matter of
    public record. Howard Hunt was a key part of the CIA Cuban opera-
    tions. Anti-Castro activists were deeply involved with Lee Harvey
    Oswald, ostensibly as antagonists.

    Even if we believe that Oswald was a lone demented assassin,
    the connections of Kennedy's murder to organized crime, the
    intelligence community and the Cubans leap from the pages of the
    Warren Report. If we doubt the Warren Commission's conclusions,
    if we can not swallow the "magic bullet" that impossibly wounded
    both Kennedy and Connally; if we are bothered by the CIA's delib-
    erate suppression of evidence before the Warren Commission, then
    the course of the strata of suspicion between Dallas and Water-
    gate becomes painfully more clear.

    In 1963 power was snatched from the hands of a President by a
    lone assassin's bullet. We want to believe that. In 1974, a
    President was driven from power in a wondrous display of democra-
    cy and the free press. We want to believe that too, but somehow,
    we can't.


    One question is, why would the CIA want to drive Nixon from office?

    I read a very informed article in the Asia Times a ways back that speculates as to why:

    Nixon was on the path of bringing about enduring peace between mainland China and Taiwan. It was argued that there were those who wanted to maintain a "strategy of tension" between China and Taiwan in order to militarize China. China later became a major manufacturer of cheap weapons which were sold to the majahadeen. One George H.W. Bush may have been instrumental in bringing about this long-term vision and may have also been instrumental in turning against Nixon and aiding the leak of information used in his impeachment proceedings.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 10:32 PM
    Response to Reply #217
    243. Actually, the JFK conspiracy buffs have had 44 years to make THEIR case...
    and have failed.

    And, exactly what case has the CIA failed at? Proving that they DIDN'T assassinate JFK?? Sorry, it's up to the buffs to prove THEIR case.

    P.S. I never, in a million years, thought I would wind up DEFENDING the CIA.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:32 PM
    Response to Reply #243
    245. Let's start with a motive.
    The only suspect who doesn't seem to have one is Oswald.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:48 AM
    Response to Reply #245
    246. Oh, but he did...
    and, if murders could be solved only with motive, it would be both easy and impossible to solve them, as so many people have motive to kill others. But much more than motive is required, as I hope you know. Beyond that, there is overwhelming physical evidence that Oswald killed JFK. Much more so tham ANY putative evidence that LBJ, the Mafia, the Cubans, the FBI, Hoover, the CIA, et al, did.

    By the way, how do you conclude that Oswald had no motive? Did he have motive to try to kill General Edwin Walker (which we know he did try)? Do you have any source to show that Oswald "had no motive" to kill JFK? You go first and then I will be glad to show Oswald's motive.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:51 AM
    Response to Reply #246
    247. Let me guess, a Koran in his car?
    Or maybe an inmate who overheard his confession in a Dallas jail?
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:55 AM
    Response to Reply #247
    248. "After nearly 40 years the question remains: Why? "
    The explanation of Oswald's motive for killing President Kennedy was buried with him. As JFK assassination expert Dr. Martin Kelly has stated, “Oswald’s mental state does not have crisp, sharp-edged concepts, so it is problematic for (anyone) to write a causally structured account easily”.

    Etc: http://hnn.us/articles/23430.html
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:10 AM
    Response to Reply #247
    250. No....
    Do you know that much about Oswald? It doesn't appear that you do. Let's start with Oswald's adulation of Cuba and Fidel Castro. Can you think of anything JFK might have done to Cuba/Castro that would raise the ire of someone like Oswald? Hint: think Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    I am assuming your flip question about the Koran or a cellmate that squeals demonstrates that you are not taking this seriously or that you have already made up your mind that Oswald could only be innocent. Maybe you are being disserved by only reading JFK assassination buff sources.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:16 AM
    Response to Reply #250
    252. Please. JFK called Fidel "part of the legacy of Bolivar"
    and that's pretty high praise by Fidel's standards. It wasn't JFK who was obsessed with taking out Castro. Quit letting Buggy blow smoke up your ass.
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 11:11 PM
    Response to Original message
    244. They killed JFK - MLK- and RFK, does anyone think that this was some sort of coincedence?!!
    How many don't know that a rogue element in the CIA played an integral part in the the JFK assassination? and of course Oswald was the Patsy! (sheeeesh!!!)
    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:12 AM
    Response to Original message
    251. Ask GHWB

    Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
     
    DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:09 PM
    Response to Original message
    Advertisements [?]
     Top

    Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

    Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
    Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


    Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

    Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

    About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

    Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

    © 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC