What Is Your Theory?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Mine is this:

A diverse group of powerful men wanted Kennedy dead and felt morally justified in killing him.

This group needed a patsy. Patsies were a dime-a-dozen.

Oswald fitted the role of patsy perfectly. With a little help.

Dallas -- well, Dallas certainly would have been on JFK's trip agenda. Dallas is especially good. Lots of right-wingers in Dallas in 1963.

JFK is a sitting duck in Dealey Plaza.

Why was JFK killed? IMO, he was a threat to some party. This party knew there were others who subscribed to JFK's death. For their own but not sufficient reasons. Not sufficient to kill him but to go along with the murder.

[Thomas Graves]

Mine is this:

A diverse group of powerful men wanted Kennedy dead and felt morally justified in killing him.

This group needed a patsy. Patsies were a dime-a-dozen.

Oswald fitted the role of patsy perfectly. With a little help.

Dallas -- well, Dallas certainly would have been on JFK's trip agenda. Dallas is especially good. Lots of right-wingers in Dallas in 1963.

JFK is a sitting duck in Dealey Plaza.

Why was JFK killed? IMO, he was a threat to some party. This party knew there were others who subscribed to JFK's death. For their own but not sufficient reasons. Not sufficient to kill him but to go along with the murder.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

The suspense is killing me.

Please tell us who publicly executed JFK, and why.

Pretty please?

--Tommy

[Steven Gaal]

The suspense is killing me.

Please tell us who publicly executed JFK, and why.

Pretty please?

--Tommy

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Its called the TIDD-BIT (GAAL)

[Thomas Graves]

The suspense is killing me.

Please tell us who publicly executed JFK, and why.

Pretty please?

--Tommy

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Its called the TIDD-BIT (GAAL)

I'm getting weary of all the ambiguous, noncommittal Tidd-bits.

I can almost hear his reply right now ---

"Well, Tommy, who do you think killed JFK, and why did they do it?"

--Tommy

Edited May 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

Who killed JFK?

Someone with a gun.

Yeah, I can do "nonspecific," too.

[Ron Ecker]

Generally speaking, it was an inside job.

[Thomas Graves]

Who killed JFK?

Someone with a gun.

Yeah, I can do "nonspecific," too.

Motive: Because they wanted him dead.

--Tommy

[Jon G. Tidd]

Mark Knight:

"Someone with a gun."

There has been discussion on this forum [a] as to how many shooters there were, and whether one of the weapons used was gas powered. I'm not so much interested in the details of the murder as I am in the high-level plotting.

Ron Ecker:

"Generally speaking, it was an inside job."

IMO, government insiders (perhaps including McGeorge Bundy) played key roles in decision-making about the assassination. I believe the highest-level plotters were outside the U.S. Government and included members of the Eastern Establishment who had financial interests at odds with certain of JFK's domestic and foreign policies.

Thomas Graves:

"Motive: Because they wanted him dead."

In your sarcasm, Tommy, you hit upon a point that's important, I believe. It's mainstream among Warren critics to assume or to postulate that JFK was killed for a reason such as revenge over the Bay of Pigs, to launch a war in Viet Nam, or to cause the marines to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. The view JFK was frustrating the interests of certain powerful individuals and that the highest-level plotters simply simply wanted JFK dead (out of the way) provides another and I believe better framework for thinking about the assassination.

This framework requires thinking about JFK's policies and who possibly felt threatened or frustrated, in a material sense, by them. I do prefer questions to answers. But the questions have to be good ones.

[Ron Ecker]

I believe the highest-level plotters were outside the U.S. Government and included members of the Eastern Establishment who had financial interests at odds with certain of JFK's domestic and foreign policies.

That's sort of like saying the Mafia did it, which ignores the fact that the Mafia did not have the power to cover up the crime. How would members of the Eastern Establishment have the power to cover up the crime? The cover-up involved (and continues to involve) the full force of the U.S. government.

[Jon G. Tidd]

"How would members of the Eastern Establishment have the power to cover up the crime? The cover-up involved (and continues to involve) the full force of the U.S. government."

Ron, you ask a question and make a statement. I agree with your statement and ask myself, why is this so?

The only satisfactory answer I know is that something's still at stake. It can't be the reputations of politicians and military officers long dead. It has to be something extant today that was extant in 1963. Among the possibilities are interests that endure, such as interests in re-shaping (i.e., exploiting) Africa and the Middle East.

When I think about such global interests, I think about "globalists" among the Eastern Establishment, which also endures.

How would one of these "globalists" control the cover-up? No doubt through the Eastern Establishment-controlled media (CBS, for example). And also through intermediaries on the government payroll.

The assassination had to serve, in some way, the interests of individuals who didn't dirty their hands but knew how such dirty dealing could be carried out. The weapon these individuals had was inside knowledge. This was a powerful weapon. Far more powerful than the mere guns that were used to kill JFK.

[Ron Ecker]

How would one of these "globalists" control the cover-up? No doubt through the Eastern Establishment-controlled media (CBS, for example). And also through intermediaries on the government payroll.

Did these globalists steal the body from Parkland, control the autopsy at Bethesda, and have full custody of the autopsy materials afterwards (using two different brains, for example, before both brains disappeared)? Did they perhaps alter the Z film while the CIA had it? The list goes on.

I can certainly see how globalists in the Eastern Establishment, just like oil men from Texas, could help finance the assassination. But there were people within the government who had all the motives necessary to get rid of JFK and had the power to do it. I'm sure that LBJ, for example, preferred the Oval Office to prison.

[David Andrews]

I believe the highest-level plotters were outside the U.S. Government and included members of the Eastern Establishment who had financial interests at odds with certain of JFK's domestic and foreign policies.

That's sort of like saying the Mafia did it, which ignores the fact that the Mafia did not have the power to cover up the crime. How would members of the Eastern Establishment have the power to cover up the crime? The cover-up involved (and continues to involve) the full force of the U.S. government.

OK, logic: It doesn't happen without the say-so of the most monied family in America, whose two point men have in the same month engineered a coup in Vietnam. Thus two nations are loosed to make war on a third, a proxy war which challenges the two neighboring Communist superpowers for the licit and illicit financial gains of the Vietnamese peninsula and the interior countries of SE Asia. Neocolonialism is established on a grand scale, as had been done smaller in the Congo in the previous administration. US defense industry profits climb and plateau.

That tiny island in the Caribbean so threatening a year before? Activities against it had been quietly scaled down in the last year, like Saturday postal service in the US today. Nobody misses it but the exiles and the mob guys whose Euro heroin trade will soon be edged out, and who then will have to climb the ladder of dealing the SE Asian varieties. Those mob guys who fulfilled their domestic assassination contract by eliminating Oswald to avoid a trial in Dallas. Dulles and McCloy, two other point men for the monied family, will be the steering committee for the Warren Commission, which will make a lone nut out of Jack Ruby. Which will make lone nuts out of anyone disagreeing with WC conclusions.

Perhaps, as at the end of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, a giant R should have formed in the sky above the smoking ruins of the old house.

Edited May 17, 2015 by David Andrews

[Steve Brodhay]

IMHP-

All the powerful interests didn't want Kennedy dead, per se, only out of the White House. These parties could have discredited Kennedy with sex scandals (Judith Exner,Mary Pinchot,Marilyn Monroe tapes(allegedly),etc) that made his re-election virtually impossible, and clear the way for "their" candidate, whoever that would be. There is only one party who would have gone to jail and lost everything if Kennedy lived to run in 11/64. And after Kennedy's death, he was the power to cover up everything with his best friends: Hoover at the FBI, the head of the Secret Service, who later worked in his administration,and his friends in Texas.

[Jon G. Tidd]

If LBJ was the master of the plot, he must have lived in terrible fear post-assassination. Fear that he'd be uncovered. After all, many in the 1960s thought he was behind the assassination. LBJ appeared, to me at least, to have no such fear; no such guilt weighing on him.

I acknowledge that LBJ was a ruthless S.O.B., who likely had Mac Wallace as a gunman. Maybe he, LBJ, was without conscience. He certainly did seem to lack remorse over Viet Nam. Maybe LBJ was the master plotter.

I'm inclined to believe, however, the plotters were well aware of LBJ's legal predicament in the fall of 1963 and knew if they allowed him to become president, he would not come after them. They would always have the goods on LBJ.

[Mark Knight]

Regarding LBJ:

“If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”--Theodore Roosevelt.

With the Don Reynolds testimony of November 22, LBJ knew that he owed SOMEBODY...and he owed them BIG. I believe "SOMEBODY" caused LBJ's heart and mind to follow THEIR wishes.