Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

[David Andrews]

Andrej, and others of the "rogue elements" mind  -- When the very influential former director of CIA, coupled with serving department heads as lofty as Helms and Phillips, conspire to remove a president and leave a trail to a lone patsy, is this a "rogue" op or a compartmentalized policy-changing op run from cooperating offices?  If the latter, then it's CIA.

Say there was a law firm with a case that covered several separate areas of legal expertise.  If this were something that was best settled through litigation, a team derived from the appropriate departments would handle the several court actions.  But if it were something that could be finessed into a quiet resolution, the partners might act cooperatively and privately to bring this about without litigation, giving only selective knowledge to needed members of the lower echelons.  In either case - the firm disposed of the matter. 

Dulles, need we recall, was a lawyer for the Rockefeller-centered establishment that worked diplomatically through Harriman and Lodge to destabilize South Vietnam and bring on the war.  But running a select group at the top of an organization to effect policy changes doesn't take an attorney,  It happens in business all the time.  And Dulles was a corporate attorney, still in control of an agency that, in period organization-think, was called The Company.      

Edited May 18, 2017 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Andrej, and others of the "rogue elements" mind  -- When the very influential former director of CIA, coupled with serving department heads as lofty as Helms and Phillips, conspire to remove a president and leave a trail to a lone patsy, is this a "rogue" op or a compartmentalized policy-changing op run from cooperating offices?  If the latter, then it's CIA...       

David,

You've presumed two premises, which led you to the conclusion you wanted.   Let's review:

Premise #1.  That Allen Dulles, along with Richard Helms and David Atlee Phillips, conspired to remove JFK.

Premise #2.  That Allen Dulles, along with Richard Helms and David Atlee Phillips, left a trail to a Lone Nut Patsy.

Conclusion: This was a "compartmentalized policy-changing op run from cooperating offices."

Given your premises, yes, the conclusion does logically follow.   HOWEVER, you have presumed your premises -- and they are exactly what you need to prove first.

Even if Allen Dulles was the greatest lawyer in the world -- that still wouldn't prove your premises. 

The historical fact remains -- Lee Harvey Oswald was set up to be a COMMUNIST Patsy, and not a Lone Nut Patsy.  That's the rub.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/18/2017 at 7:17 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Andrej - I think your post is very perceptive. Tommy is becoming obsessed with his latest burgeoning theory. There's barely a hint of reason to suspect the Russians, at least not the ones we know of. But of course at the deeper levels of global power who knows what alliances are formed by evil men.

Dear Paul,

Yes, you're right -- Dick Cheney and George Soros probably conspired to get a bumbling, divisive, self-incriminating (and therefore a-very-useful-to-Putin "Useful Idiot") guy get elected president of the United States of America, you know, so that they, in collusion with oil and gas rich Russia, could start realizing their geopolitically-mandated Globastic ... Manifest Destiny?

Or was it the Illuminati, instead?

--  Tommy

PS  Ever heard of "Putin's Rasputin", Alexander Dugin?

There's a Wikipedia article on him you know.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T 

Only Allen Dulles had the resources on hand to pull off the assassination and then cover it up. No other man, entity or country could have done it.

Can you imagine how many parts were needed to pull this off? Only Dulles was able to marshall the forces required.

[Paul Brancato]

43 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

Only Allen Dulles had the resources on hand to pull off the assassination and then cover it up. No other man, entity or country could have done it.

Can you imagine how many parts were needed to pull this off? Only Dulles was able to marshall the forces required.

 

6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Andrej, and others of the "rogue elements" mind  -- When the very influential former director of CIA, coupled with serving department heads as lofty as Helms and Phillips, conspire to remove a president and leave a trail to a lone patsy, is this a "rogue" op or a compartmentalized policy-changing op run from cooperating offices?  If the latter, then it's CIA.

Say there was a law firm with a case that covered several separate areas of legal expertise.  If this were something that was best settled through litigation, a team derived from the appropriate departments would handle the several court actions.  But if it were something that could be finessed into a quiet resolution, the partners might act cooperatively and privately to bring this about without litigation, giving only selective knowledge to needed members of the lower echelons.  In either case - the firm disposed of the matter. 

Dulles, need we recall, was a lawyer for the Rockefeller-centered establishment that worked diplomatically through Harriman and Lodge to destabilize South Vietnam and bring on the war.  But running a select group at the top of an organization to effect policy changes doesn't take an attorney,  It happens in business all the time.  And Dulles was a corporate attorney, still in control of an agency that, in period organization-think, was called The Company.      

David - I nearly always agree with you, including this time. The same group of conspirators could be called rogue, or compartmentalised. I believe it's more a semantic argument than a basic disagreement. 

[Michael Clark]

25 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

David - I nearly always agree with you, including this time. The same group of conspirators could be called rogue, or compartmentalised. I believe it's more a semantic argument than a basic disagreement. 

Just to add a nuance, and some post-911 verbiage, Stove-piping may be good term, as opposed to compartmentalized. Stove-piping came to mind when, In the Freeport Sulpher thread, I was considering Craig Varnell's suggestion that Dulles was not involved in the planning and execution; but got left as a sucker (patsy) to do clean-up duties.

I am still considering this.... the job was stove-piped down from the Eastern Establishment, to guys like Hunt, bypassing Dulles, playing dirty tricks on Angleton, separating functions between the Mob, Cubans, and Dallas players. DAP was active.

Angleton got surprised, Dulles was less surprised but forced to act in a cover-up.

It's just a working theory but it is elegant.

 

Cheers,

Michael

Edited May 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

Only Allen Dulles had the resources on hand to pull off the assassination and then cover it up. No other man, entity or country could have done it.

Can you imagine how many parts were needed to pull this off? Only Dulles was able to marshall the forces required.

George,

IMHO, you neglect the greater possibility of a JFK Kill Team, separate and completely opposed to a JFK Cover-up Team.

Any retired US General, with a deep, personal hatred for JFK, and perhaps some actual paranoia, could (and would) Mastermind the JFK Kill Team by using the Dallas Minutemen.

To conceal this situation during the Cold War, the FBI could (and would) Mastermind the JFK Cover-up Team, by using a coast to coast organization, with approval from LBJ.

My evidence is that the JFK Kill Team carefully set up Oswald to look like a Communist assassin, but the JFK Cover-up Team twisted evidence to make Oswald look like a Lone Nut.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

George,

IMHO, you neglect the greater possibility of a JFK Kill Team, separate and completely opposed to a JFK Cover-up Team.

Any retired US General, with a deep, personal hatred for JFK, and perhaps some actual paranoia, could (and would) Mastermind the JFK Kill Team.

To conceal this situation during the Cold War, the FBI could (and would) Mastermind the JFK Cover-up Team.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Walker was an odd-ball loner. He had no friends accept those he could attract with hatred and racism. Please correct me if I am wrong. I know there is some basis-in-fact for this, however.

Do you think he would risk his life, counting on a cover-up to the highest levels?

I'm not seeing it.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited May 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Andrews]

Some good points, everybody.  Thanks.  More later.

Paul - I look at the word rogue as equivalent to the word unauthorized and concomitant to the concept punishable.  And didn't nobody get punished for Dealey.  Only for being in position to talk about it.

Was the "rogue op" sanctioned afterward, since Jack couldn't be brought back?  Or did it always exist above the possibility of sanction.  That is, upon the level of the paradiso named Denial.  ("I'm not privy to who struck John," pointedly dispensed at a certain career-closing backyard news conference in Arlington.)

"Rogue" by this definition equals "Carried out at the highest levels of Company operations."

Edited May 19, 2017 by David Andrews

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

Only Allen Dulles had the resources on hand to pull off the assassination and then cover it up. No other man, entity or country could have done it.

Factually incorrect.

Dulles was a life-long employee -- his employers had access to all the resources Dulles did.

 

 

[George Sawtelle]

  

[George Sawtelle]

The plotters of the coup need the backing of the military. They need troops on the ground when it becomes necessary to control rioting or small scale engagements or firefights if they break out as a result of the assassination. Without the backing of the military the plotters could be captured and executed if something goes wrong.

Who among the various groups named by one or more researchers as responsible for the assassination could get the backing of the military to provide soldiers and weapons to defend the objectives of the coup if necessary? 

[Andrej Stancak]

Military: I cannot overlook David Lifton's account of the presence of admirals and generals during the autopsy of President's body in his Best Evidence. What happened during the autopsy was a fulfillment of the plan "all shots from the Depository" which plan did not pup up in the autopsy room. The generals were there to ensure that the best evidence became a false evidence. The military inteligence had Lee Oswald firmly in their grip, trained him in languages, allowed access to top secret facilities at Atsugi, and most likely loaned him to the CIA. The first data about Oswald after the assassination appeared to come from the military intelligence.

The military intelligence has the benefit that we know even less about them than about the CIA. There were tight personal associations between the CIA and the military intelligence, described in detail in Dick Russel's book The Man Who Knew Too Much. It is difficult to separate the doings of the two groups when they collaborated on a project. However, we will not find any details about this particular black operation as there hardly was any paper record. The communication was minimal, face-to-face, and ultra-secret. All involved carried out their parts in such a way that their steps could have been explained in a very different way (not necessarily innocent...). For instance, Phillips could claim not knowing about the assassination plans while guiding Lee Harvey Oswald because, in the worst, their interest was only to infiltrate Fair Play for Cuba Committee, or to scam a mole in the CIA. There were false trails and decoy operations in place, imposters, and faked stories. All of this made such a cloud of misinformation that it is almost impossible, especially after so many years, to see what trace was the one associated with the killing plan and what what just a distraction aimed to lead to nowhere when pursuit.  

Edited May 19, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

The plotters of the coup need the backing of the military. They need troops on the ground when it becomes necessary to control rioting or small scale engagements or firefights if they break out as a result of the assassination. Without the backing of the military the plotters could be captured and executed if something goes wrong.

Who among the various groups named by one or more researchers as responsible for the assassination could get the backing of the military to provide soldiers and weapons to defend the objectives of the coup if necessary? 

George,

There was no coup.    The Vice President assumed the duties of the President, under the US Constitution.

Don't believe all the CT fiction out there.  Most of it is rubbish.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Military: I cannot overlook David Lifton's account of the presence of admirals and generals during the autopsy of President's body in his Best Evidence. What happened during the autopsy was a fulfillment of the plan "all shots from the Depository" which plan did not pup up in the autopsy room. The generals were there to ensure that the best evidence became a false evidence. The military inteligence had Lee Oswald firmly in their grip, trained him in languages, allowed access to top secret facilities at Atsugi, and most likely loaned him to the CIA. The first data about Oswald after the assassination appeared to come from the military intelligence.

Andrej,

Inside the pages of David Lifton's superb book, Best Evidence (1981), he often steps back to ask how the evidence might have a benign explanation.

Sadly, David has stopped doing that today.  But the solution to the JFK assassination requires CTers to continue doing that. 

The JFK Kill Team was different from the JFK Cover-up Team.  Although David Lifton was willing to consider this in 1981, he has become cynical, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 19, 2017 by Paul Trejo