Jump to content
The Education Forum

Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul T. - could you answer Michael Clark's questions regarding Banister wanting Oswald to kill JFK and Phillips wanting him to kill Castro? Frankly, these kind of beliefs do nothing to advance your theory of Walker being the lynchpin of the assassination. When you answer, try to stick specifically to those two questions without expanding. I would say on its face that the idea that anyone wanted Oswald to kill anyone is absurd. What credentials did Oswald have? Michael also points out that it makes no sense for Phillips to send Oswald on a mission to get into Cuba which Phillips had to know would not be successful. Either Oswald was sent for another purpose, or he didn't go at all, and the whole thing was a charade created to support the myth of Oswald the assassin. 

George - you started what has become an important thread with your own preconceived theory. I think you should take Prouty seriously. Forgive me if I've missed something. Have you named your 4 conspirators who ran the show? 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

Timing is important. I don't think it's time to name anyone accept to say there were few (4) who were the leaders.

It would be a waste of effort to name the leaders and then defend against members of this forum who are not ready to engage in meaningful debate on the issue. Most of the members here are still not convinced the assassination was the result of a conspiracy judging from the amount and content of the threads that address conspiracy issues. Instead of getting together and have a jury-like discussion to come to an agreement on the "who" we would get a lot of bickering and fighting which would be counter productive.

It's noteworthy that Prouty, who worked at the Pentagon and with the CIA on covert activity, has no knowledge of the leaders. The closest he comes to naming anyone is when he says it was "black ops" apparently meaning it was the director of that department. The leaders of the plot were very adept at secrecy and covering their tracks and boosts the theory that the plot was planned and executed outside the CIA and the Pentagon.

I think you and I can discuss the "who" but it would have to be through e-mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

New ground is required for the "who". We won't find any documents on the plot or on the leaders. The best we can do is check itineraries, travel vouchers, phone logs, appointments logs written by secretaries, conversations with people who are still alive, meetings assuming records were kept, and build a circumstancial case.

Only a few researchers have named names. The rest of us haven't ventured into that area because of the lack of documentation. And that's probably why many of us are still stuck on conspiracy issues.

Edited by George Sawtelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George - new ground would be required for legal proof. I still think that comparing theories can be valuable. 

How do you interpret the the CIA use of Joannides as the liaison to the HSCA, and their refusal to release pertinent documents on Joannides? 

Not a day goes by when I don't look at today's world and imagine what it might have been had not some cabal not killed our best and brightest. That picture in my mind convinces me that there was an evil conspiracy at work. I would love it if the pieces were to fall into place and reveal this cabal. But even if that never happens, I will remain convinced that it existed. If certain  historical villains (my opinion) were not actually involved, I would still hold them accountable. 

I was curious about  your actual suspects, but I'm ok if you don't share.

 

 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

I don't see any value in rehashing the same thing over and over again. How many times should we discuss Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, some obscure intelligence agent who happened to be in Dallas, Jack Ruby, Roger Craig, Morales, the arguments over photos, alteration of the ZAP film, the SBT. Salandria was absolutely right, they will keep you going around in circles until they tire you and you quit. We are spinning our wheels not getting anywhere and need to go on to the next step.

Joannides is another example of the CIA cover-up. I guess he is trying to hide his involvement with DRE and thus Oswald. All CIA agents want to distance themselves from Oswald for obvious reasons.

We can line up the usual suspects ... LBJ, Gen Walker, Curtis LeMay, Allen Dulles, Averill Harriman, Richard Helms, James Angleton, ect. We can track their movements in the days starting 6 months before the assassination or go further back if need be. I don't think this has been done before so we would be breaking new ground. If something like this can be done we would be going further towards the truth than the path we currently follow.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2017 at 4:44 PM, David Andrews said:

The section responsible would be considered a rogue unit within the agency.

I suggest it was a compartmentalized section run by Dulles, Helms and Phillips.

As usual I agree with David Andrews. Notice he used the word 'run'.

Compartmentalized is much more believable than rogue.

David - do you think Angleton was in this section? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

Dulles was not working for the CIA when Kennedy was killed. It was much safer for the CIA, and gave them plausible deniability, if the plot was run from outside the CIA with CIA agents on loan to Dulles. Those individuals like Helms and Angleton who had no need to know didn't know. And why would they want to know? It would be much easier for them to stay ignorant knowing their problem would be solved by someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Like Caesar, he is surrounded by enemies and something's underway, but it has no face. Yet everybody in the loop knows.

Everything is cellularized. 

No one said, "He must die." No vote. Nothing's on paper. 

There's no one to blame. 

It's as old as the crucifixion. 

Or the military firing squad. 

Five bullets, one blank. No one's guilty. 

Everybody in the power structure... 

...has a plausible deniability. 

No compromising connections except at the most secret point. 

But it must succeed. 

No matter how many die or how much it costs... 

...the perpetrators must be on the winning side... 

...and never subject to prosecution for anything by anyone. 

That is a coup d'état. 
Edited by Roger DeLaria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2017 at 0:19 AM, Paul Brancato said:

David - do you think Angleton was in this section? 

Paul - I haven't decided.  His false defector became the Patsy.  He owed his position to cooperation with Dulles (down to the famous contract not to polygraph Dulles and selected associates).  He was a rabid enough enemy of communism to fall in with the thinking that JFK, as an opponent of US imperialism, was a de facto communist sympathizer.  I feel less certain of his enmity toward JFK, though, than that of Dulles, Helms and Phillips.  (Maybe I shouldn't let his air of pseudo-intellectual aloofness influence me.)  A lot of the decision may hinge on a closer reading of the post-assassination Mexico City molehunt, and how Angleton's interests and mission there tie in with those of Phillips. 

Would Angleton have been opposed to Kennedy's assassination by CIA elements?  Hardly.  Did he have genuine reasons to suspect the Soviets of the assassination?  Doubtful.  Does he strike one as a respecter of the Executive Office and any of the occupants he "served" under?  To paraphrase the famous remark on Dulles, I think Angleton was innocent of such matters.  His chief preoccupations were anti-communism, intelligence intrigue, and preserving the integrity of the Agency - the definition of integrity here not to be confused with that of ethics. 

Where does all this put him in the cabal?  One last observation: I think Angleton imagined himself a pragmatist about CIA and intelligence affairs.*  Striking John was a pragmatic decision, by some lights.

--------

*Sidebar: Angleton, I think, considered his self-presumed intuitiveness a tool to base his pragmatism on - and it failed him in the cases of Philby, Golitsyn and Nosenko.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

Continuing the theme of my post above, what does Helms or Angleton or any chief of a department of the CIA do for Allen Dulles with regard to accomplishing the assassination of JFK? The chief of any government department within an agency is a delegator of authority. Well that's what Dulles is. He doesn't need anymore delegators of authority. Dulles is the best at managing operations that were required for the assassination.

Dulles needs guys who do the work. Guys who have contacts in the field, controllers of agents who can be used as patsies etc, etc, etc.

Men like Helms and Angleton are not hands-on-people. They don't get their hands dirty working in the field. If their name pops up in an article with the name of Oswald it only means that one of their workers handles or works with Oswald. Chiefs of a department within the CIA don't work directly with an agent like Oswald.

Edited by George Sawtelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/26/2017 at 10:25 PM, George Sawtelle said:

Paul

Continuing the theme of my post above, what does Helms or Angleton or any chief of a department of the CIA do for Allen Dulles with regard to accomplishing the assassination of JFK? The chief of any government department within an agency is a delegator of authority. Well that's what Dulles is. He doesn't need anymore delegators of authority. Dulles is the best at managing operations that were required for the assassination.

He was?

What was so smart about setting up family friends of his girlfriend as hosts of the family of the patsy?

Who would pull such a stupid move as setting up people who could be traced back to them by a mere two degrees?

Dulles-centrics have no answer.

Another question the Dulles-centrics never answer: if Dulles was such a smart operator why did he sleep-walk his way thru the Dean Rusk/McGeorge Bundy  Bay of Pigs planning?  It was McGeorge Bundy's idea to stage false flag attacks on the Cuban Air Force two days before the invasion.  That operation failed, the invasion failed -- and Dulles took the fall.

The Dulles-Bancroft-Paine connection suggests Dulles was a back-up patsy in the murder of JFK, not the mastermind.

The claim that only Allen Dulles had the connections and motive to murder JFK is a-historical nonsense.

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...