Jump to content


Spartacus

Who Killed JFK?: Poll and Discussion?


  • Please log in to reply
234 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 26 June 2004 - 08:50 AM

I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where we vote and speculate on who killed JFK.

I will start the ball by suggesting the Military Industrial Complex. The operation was a complete success and the group achieved all its objectives. This includes the cover up that involved the implication of several groups and individuals in the plot. One reason for this was to guarantee the help of these individuals and groups in the cover up. This involved implicating LBJ, the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service. It also involved implicating the Kennedy brothers in other terrible events. This ensured that the Kennedy family and its close associates joined in the cover up. This cover up included both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee of Assassinations (this involved a change in tactics with the finger now being pointed at the Mafia).

It also included a far more sinister cover up that will have long term implications for the history of the world. I believe that the CIA and FBI were involved in destroying a large number of documents relating to the assassination in November/December, 1963. These were replaced with false documents that have yet to be released. These documents will only become available when all those who are referred to are dead. These documents, because of the fact they have been held back, will be believed to be genuine. They will do two things: (1) They will show that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. (2) They will link the Kennedy brothers with a series of crimes and wrongdoings, including the murder of Marilyn Monroe. Others smeared will be those associated with what the Military Industrial Complex would refer to as dangerous radicals (Martin Luther King, etc.)

I believe that the people behind the assassination were representatives of what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex. The main objective was to ensure the continuance of the Cold War. To achieve this they had the convince the American public that they faced a real communist threat. The presence of a revolutionary communist government on its doorstep (Cuba) was permanent evidence of this. So also was the presence of WMD in the Soviet Union and China. As in Iraq, we now know the CIA and MI5 exaggerated this threat.

Therefore we have to identify the representatives of the Military Industrial Complex in the government. Their main man was John McCone, Director of the CIA. That is not to say that the assassination of JFK was a CIA operation (although it did use a CIA agent, David Morales, to organize the assassination).

McCone is a classical case of a representative of the Military Industrial Complex. The owner of a small engineering company before the war, between 1942-45 his new company, California Shipbuilding, made $44 million in profits from an investment of $100,000.

After the war McCone was brought into the government and served as Deputy to the Secretary of Defense (1948) and Under Secretary of the Air Force (1950-1951). What did he know about these matters? Only that it was in the best interests of MIC to spend increasing amounts of money on the arms trade. McCone was an ardent Cold War warrior and in 1956 attacked the suggestion made by Adlai Stevenson that there should be a nuclear test ban. McCone accused American scientists of being "taken in" by Soviet propaganda and of attempting to "create fear in the minds of the uninformed that radioactive fallout from H-bomb tests endangers life." Read that quote again if you did not get it the first time. Now that is what I call disinformation.

In 1958 Eisenhower appointed McCone as Chairman of the Atomic Energy commission. After the Bay of Pigs disaster, President John F. Kennedy sacked Allen W. Dulles as Director of the CIA. Under pressure from right-wingers in the intelligence community, Kennedy appointed McCone as the new director.

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 ant-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.

The Cubans would obviously feel betrayed when they realised Castro would not be toppled. Those Cubans who knew anything about the assassination had to be got rid of. Soon after the assassination most of this group were sent on a mission to kill Castro and create a reason for the United States to invade Cuba. This group was betrayed to the Cuban Secret Service. As a result they were executed in Cuba. A few Cubans remained. Some of these were the victims of hit men (who had no idea why they were killing them).

I believe one or two of these survived. They, like me, took out an insurance policy. They recorded what they knew about the case and placed the information with lawyers, solicitors, etc. These documents, tapes, etc. were only to be released in event of their dying in suspicious circumstances. These people have become untouchable. They are the only ones who will ever be able to provide any hard evidence of this conspiracy. Even if they do talk, they will only have evidence of a small part of the plot. No one will have information that implicates anyone higher than Morales. The conspiracy was a complete success. Or can we fight back?

#2 Guest_Andrew Field_*

Guest_Andrew Field_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2004 - 09:07 AM

This is extremely interesting as quite literally it gives a really good summary of what you think happened and why. However, have you really put documents in the hands of solicitors in the case of a suspicious death?

You also state that the conspiracy was a complete success. The Cold War did indeed continue - but would you now link this with the current 'war of terror' - are the same people implicated?

Edit: Also you need an option for the 'lone gunman' too?

Edited by Andrew Field, 26 June 2004 - 09:34 AM.


#3 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 26 June 2004 - 10:48 AM

... you need an option for the 'lone gunman' too? (Andrew)

Does anyone still believe this? Even the House Select Committee on Assassinations gave up on this in 1979 (therefore the need to blame the Mafia). However, I have now added a Lee Harvey Oswald option (this should ensure John McAdams and his group join under assumed names to vote).

You also state that the conspiracy was a complete success. The Cold War did indeed continue - but would you now link this with the current 'war of terror' - are the same people implicated? (Andrew)

Exactly right. See my posting on this at:

http://educationforu...p?showtopic=992

This is extremely interesting as quite literally it gives a really good summary of what you think happened and why. However, have you really put documents in the hands of solicitors in the case of a suspicious death? (Andrew)

As you have probably gathered that much of what have written is based on my understanding of political changes that have taken place since 1945. That material is pure speculation and can never be proved (as I explained earlier).

However, the comments based on the operation itself, organized by David Morales, is based on the evidence. This evidence has been provided by several people involved in the assassination. They have also taken out insurance to make sure they live out their natural life span. I have been forced to do the same thing.

Although I have taken these precautions my main fear is not death. It is the fear that I might become a target of a smear campaign (the main way people are kept quiet) or an attempt to get my website removed. If that happens, I will have to contact my sources about the possibility of releasing the evidence we have.

#4 Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2004 - 10:55 AM

The poll leaves something to be desired as I would vote for at least 4 of those options simutaneously.

Wim

#5 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 26 June 2004 - 11:42 AM

The poll leaves something to be desired as I would vote for at least 4 of those options simutaneously.


Are you suggesting that these four organizations/groups joined up together to assassinate JFK? Would be interested in how you explain this theory. Or are you talking about the cover up rather than the assassination. If so, I think you need to split these two theories in order to make sense of what went on.

#6 Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2004 - 04:42 PM

The poll leaves something to be desired as I would vote for at least 4 of those options simutaneously.


Are you suggesting that these four organizations/groups joined up together to assassinate JFK? Would be interested in how you explain this theory. Or are you talking about the cover up rather than the assassination. If so, I think you need to split these two theories in order to make sense of what went on.

Of Course!

The military industrial complex, the CIA (rogue elements, Bush, Phillips, Lansdale, Cabell, etc), the Mafia, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Texan Big Oil (Hunt, Murchison, Richardson, John De Menil, Byrd, Mecom, Bush), anti-Castro Cuban exiles, were all in this together.

Hence, you should enable the voters to vote for multiple groups.

Wim

Edited by dankbaar, 26 June 2004 - 04:44 PM.


#7 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 June 2004 - 05:48 PM

Hi John.

I agree with Wim. Need to have multiple choice selections, and segment the question. Personally, I still like three parts: Conspiracy, Action and Cover-up.

Just my opinion, but the mix would be different on each.

- lee

#8 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 26 June 2004 - 05:48 PM

The military industrial complex, the CIA (rogue elements, Bush, Phillips, Lansdale, Cabell, etc), the Mafia, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Texan Big Oil (Hunt, Murchison, Richardson, John De Menil, Byrd, Mecom, Bush), anti-Castro Cuban exiles, were all in this together.

Could you explain how this conspiracy was organized. How many people were involved? How could you keep them all from talking?

#9 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 June 2004 - 05:50 PM

Hi John.

Maybe not the best place to post this - I have not yet read the book. Seemed appropriate for the topic.

Cronies.

In Cronies, renowned investigative reporter Robert Bryce illuminates how Texas turned its vast energy resources into political power, and how a small group of Texas corporations, lawyers and politicians use that power to protect and defend their own economic interests. Through an absorbing narrative that moves from the days of the oil boom, through the rise and reign of LBJ, to today, Bryce profiles the Texans and the Texas corporations who have wielded-and continue to wield-great power in America's domestic and foreign policy, including the Bushes, James A. Baker III, Halliburton, Baker Botts, Ray Hunt, Bell Helicopter, and more. He shows how massive transfers of wealth from the rest of the country to Texas have allowed the state to prosper. Cronies demonstrates how George W. Bush is the living embodiment of Texas' crony networks, and how those networks continue to play critical roles in the 21st century.

Distinguished by the same crack investigative skills and colorful storytelling that reviewers loved in Pipe Dreams, Cronies not only explains the astonishing rise of Texas; it offers a timely, provocative new way to look at American politics and our deadly entanglements in Iraq.

#10 Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2004 - 06:42 PM

The military industrial complex, the CIA (rogue elements, Bush, Phillips, Lansdale, Cabell, etc), the Mafia, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Texan Big Oil (Hunt, Murchison, Richardson, John De Menil, Byrd, Mecom, Bush),  anti-Castro Cuban exiles,  were all in this together.

Could you explain how this conspiracy was organized. How many people were involved? How could you keep them all from talking?

Al lot of them DID talk. Ruby, Oswald, Files, Holt, Plumlee, Roselli, Nixon, Ferrie, Giancana and on and on. Even LBJ is on record that he did not believe the Warren Report.

Ask Larry for the rest!

And ask Judyth too how she was kept from talking.

Can you also answer my question in the thread on Harrelson?

Wim

Edited by dankbaar, 26 June 2004 - 06:44 PM.


#11 Robert E. Cox

Robert E. Cox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abiquiu, NM

Posted 27 June 2004 - 06:44 PM

John: Congratulations on your fine web offering -- a stellar addition to the ranks. That said, I've got to cast my lot with Wim in the current discussion on who killed JFK -- there are other options to consider aside from single-element thesis (i.e. CIA or FBI or Cuban Exiles or Mafia, etc.) It has been well-documented that these organizations and factions did and do not operate independently of one another. Dulles of the CIA could put out a call to Maheu of the Mil-Ind complex, who could put out a call to Roselli of the Mafia, which could connect with the Cuban exiles, who were connected with the CIA. Somewhere in this circle, or other related entanglements, there well could have been a rogue team with players from more than one element. The question as to how such a complex group could have managed to keep a secret is a good question, but if you're polling to determine what people think, then give 'em a chance to tell you what they think. You can argue with them somewhere else.

It's only the Republican push-pollers of the USA who believe that the only questions you ask are the ones containing the answers you want to hear. I suggest you add a few more options, like CIA-Mafia, or Mafia-Mil/Ind Complex, or Mafia-Exile. or LBJ-Mil/Ind-CIA. Granted, that confuses the poll, but the result may be interesting -- I wonder how many of us suspect that there were more than one set of black hats participating in this shoot-em-up?

Bob

#12 Guest_Tony Frank_*

Guest_Tony Frank_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2004 - 08:35 PM

As the KGB officers that had infitrated the CIA were controlling Senator Barry Goldwater, an intelligence officer that they had targeted for political office, it made it look very much like the Military Industrial Complex was culpable. This is not a theory, it's a fact.

They set up a well-orchestrated production of escalating rhetorical conflict between Kennedy and Goldwater. It was engineered to end in the crescendo of gunfire on November 22, 1963. Here's how it went (if you can pay attention long enough to read it). Be sure and note Goldwater's grand reception in Texas exactly 6 weeks before they assassinated Kennedy.

Essential elements of the rhetorical conflict sprouted on the morning of July 12, 1963, when Senator Barry Goldwater, “the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1964 arrived at the Statler-Hilton Hotel, just three blocks from the White House, to have breakfast with 500 of his admirers.”

The occasion was the Human Events Political Action Conference. Human Events is “a conservative political weekly published in Washington.”

Goldwater, in his early morning political speech, “charged that President Kennedy was trying to ‘coexist with international communism wherever it thrives, even in the Western Hemisphere.’”

He made several statements attacking the way Kennedy dealt with communist expansionism and added, “I believe today’s liberal is so frightened of the future that he is incapable of acting in the present.”

“Goldwater’s attacks on the President were greeted with applause, shouts, cheers, whistles and the stomping of feet and the Senator’s harsh words set the tone for a long day of speeches by other Members of Congress . . . Administration proposals ranging from the wilderness bill to disarmament were denounced.”

Republican Congressman Bruce Alger of Texas “declared that ‘Bobby is behind every bush,’ and the audience howled at this thrust at Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.”

The only Democrat who addressed the conference was from the segregationist South, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, “one of the principal opponents of Mr. Kennedy’s civil rights program.”

On July 31, 1963, “Senator Barry Goldwater accused Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy of using ‘police state’ powers in an effort to desegregate communities around military bases.”

“He and several Southern Democrats denounced a Pentagon directive authorizing military commanders to designate as off limits for servicemen communities which practice ‘relentless discrimination’ against Negroes.”

“Goldwater told the Senate this action carries the seeds of a possible military takeover.”

“What he fears, Goldwater said, is ‘the threat of a military takeover should things change in this country and we find that the military commanders have become used to running politics and the social life of the community.’”

On August 13, 1963, during Senate hearings on a partial nuclear test ban treaty, “Senator Barry Goldwater, front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, said in a Senate speech that the treaty might open ‘a possibly fatal gap’ in this Nation’s defenses against enemy missile attack.”

On September 20, 1963, Goldwater made it appear as though he was warming up to the idea that he would be President Kennedy’s opponent in 1964, and he used the electoral prize of what was then conservative California to do so, the state that was conservative enough to elect Ronald Reagan as its Governor in 1966.

Goldwater announced the formation of a California advisory committee “‘for consultation’ about the California primary,” but he stated that it was “not an announcement that I intend to seek the Presidential nomination.”

“Why the Arizona Republican hit upon the idea of an advisory committee is something he didn’t explain, beyond saying it was suggested by his California friends and supporters.”

On September 26, 1963, less than two months before his assassination in Dallas, Texas, “President Kennedy spoke in the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah . . . Utah, like the other mountain states the President is visiting on his five day, ten state Western tour, is a center of Goldwater strength and radical right-wing activities.”

“President Kennedy sharply attacked the foreign policies advocated by Senator Barry Goldwater” and “took issue point by point with proposals put forth by the Senator. The speech marked the first time that the President has tried to refute in a detailed way the foreign policies that Goldwater has stressed.”

Kennedy deleted a reference to the fact that Barry Goldwater often spoke about “total victory,” but in what seems to be a naively ironic parody of the fate that awaited him, Kennedy did say, “We have history going for us today.”

On October 3, 1963, less than two weeks after his California advisory committee was formed and exactly one week after Kennedy went to conservative Utah to attack his foreign policies, Barry Goldwater spoke “deep in the heartland of Western conservatism” to the California Federation of Republican Women, and he “charged the Kennedy Administration with establishing ‘a Soviet-American mutual aid society.’”

Goldwater attacked President Kennedy’s New Frontier policies and said: “In less than a month the New Frontier has offered to pick up the check for half the cost of a joint shot to the moon, stop testing nuclear weapons in the air and, finally, bail out the highly vaunted Soviet farm collective with what I’m willing to bet will be tons of free American wheat.”

“There is an old line somewhere that goes: If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. But I for one am not quite ready to lie down and play Rover to Kremlin tunes.”

“Along the New Frontier the idea is to conform or keep quiet. Nothing must be done to ruffle Mr. Khrushchev’s feelings or lead him to think that we are superior to the Soviets in any category. We don’t hear a tough note out of this Administration unless it is directed at one of our tried and proven allies.”

(The “tried and proven allies” were the repressive dictatorships that Goldwater and the CIA supported, which fostered Communist insurgencies.)

Six days later, on October 9, 1963, “President Kennedy said that the United States is wholly opposed to military coups in Latin America, no matter what justification is made for them . . . In addition to their threat to the whole process of democratic government and progress, he said, military ‘dictatorships are the seed-beds from which communism ultimately springs up’ . . . His statement served to clarify the United States position in the controversy that has arisen about this nation’s policy since the recent military coups in the Dominican Republic and Honduras.”

President Kennedy made his remarks at a news conference that also consisted of the following:

Q: Mr. President, there is a widespread impression that you expect Senator Barry Goldwater to be the Republican nominee for President next year. I think your speech in Salt Lake City had something to do with that. Is that your expectation?

A: I think he can do it. I think it is possible for him to do it. But he has a long road to go, recalling the situation in September 1959, October 1959. I think Senator Goldwater has a trying seven or eight months which will test his endurance and his perseverance and his agility.

Q: Are you basing that on your own experience in 1960?

A: Yes. (R.P. 59)

On the following day, October 10, 1963, Barry Goldwater spoke in Pennsylvania and “lashed out at the ‘corruption-ridden machines’ which he said are the key to national Democratic victories . . . Goldwater delivered a slashing attack on the New Frontier’s connections with the big city machines in the North and East . . . ‘The liberal Democratic alliance for power today means that no Democratic candidate for office at the national level can be nominated or elected without the support of big city political bosses and their corruption-ridden machines.’”

Goldwater also said, “The vitality of American leadership in the cold war has waned to the vanishing point.”

“Mr. Goldwater, rated a leading prospect for next year’s Republican Presidential nomination, said the Kennedy Administration’s choice was clear: ‘Government of the Kennedys, by the Kennedys and for the Kennedys.’”

“He said the kind of progress the Democrats offered ‘stumbles backward toward depression-born make-work programs . . . What counts are New Frontiersmen and their cronies.’”

“His appearance in this key state was widely viewed as another sign that he is seriously considering becoming a candidate for the GOP nomination next year.”

It was also on October 10, 1963, that “Senator Barry Goldwater told reporters he would be willing to debate President Kennedy on television if he is the Republican Presidential nominee in 1964, but he stressed that he hadn’t made up his mind about seeking the nomination. When asked when he would make a decision he said, ‘I don’t know when it will be.’”

Besides having the electoral prize of California as a point of interest in his possible Presidential bid, Goldwater now had the electoral prize of Pennsylvania, and the day after his visit to that particular electoral prize, he made the most noteworthy of appearances.

On Friday, October 11, 1963, exactly six weeks before President Kennedy was assassinated while riding from Dallas Love Field, Goldwater visited Texas. The Washington Post reported:

“Goldwater flew to San Antonio and got a red carpet welcome midway through a three-night speaking schedule that will take him across the nation.”

“The Senator rode from the airport in an open convertible” while “a crowd of fans chanted ‘We want Barry’ and waved ‘Goldwater for President’ signs.”
“Goldwater, rated by pollsters as a leader among potential candidates for the 1964 Republican presidential nomination, waved and leaned over to shake hands.” (This reception in Texas did not go unnoticed by President Kennedy.)

Goldwater “touched down in San Antonio for less than a day” to address the Military Order of World Wars.

A Dallas Morning News reporter reporting from San Antonio wrote: “Senator Barry Goldwater charged here Friday night that the Kennedy Administration is following the most disastrous foreign policy in the nation’s history . . . ‘The policy stands wall-eyed in Berlin and cross-eyed in Paris and blind in Cuba.’”

“Senator Goldwater waded into the Administration after receiving an award for his contribution to national defense from the Military Order of World Wars, made up of active and retired commissioned officers.”

“The front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination told the officer veterans that he was going to give them some plain, hard talk about the world situation.”

“His speech was interrupted eighteen times by applause from an obviously conservative and anti-Kennedy military audience.”

“He rounded the world in his indictment and was particularly critical about the handling of Latin-American affairs.”

The Washington Post story describing Goldwater’s reception in Texas was on page 2 on October 12 and headlined, “Goldwater Labels JFK Policy a Disaster,” but there was another, lengthier article in the Washington Post on October 13, 1963, describing Goldwater’s speech:

“In his speech he ad libbed ‘The Administration curses the juntas that curse the Communist curse.’ He stated that the government in the Dominican Republic had been ‘smashed altogether by military leaders who saw communism, not true progress, building behind the facade.’” (The armed forces in the Dominican Republic had ousted the first President to be legally elected in several decades, and they installed a repressive right-wing government a few weeks before Goldwater made his statement.)

“Goldwater deeply stirred the convention with a pep talk for patriotism at the end of his formal speech.”

The October 13th article also detailed a news conference in San Antonio on October 11, 1963, during which Goldwater, who supported segregation, addressed civil rights, stating, “‘I’d like to see us calm down in the whole field’ . . . with the recognition ‘that not only the Negro, but the whites in many instances have beefs.’”
“During his news conference he repeated a quip about the government being ‘of the Kennedys, by the Kennedys and for the Kennedys.’”

Goldwater had also made his statement about a government “of the Kennedys, by the Kennedys and for the Kennedys” on the day before coming to Texas, and he also held a news conference before coming to Texas.

At that news conference, Goldwater answered a number of questions “with the preface, ‘I am not a candidate.’ However, from time to time he did say, ‘If I were a candidate’ before responding to a question.”

This apparently was the first time that Barry Goldwater had uttered any words that weren’t a straightforward denial that he had made any decision about becoming a candidate, just as the reception in Texas was also unprecedented. (There were several times that Goldwater refuses to speculate about being a candidate and denied having made a decision that he would become a candidate, which is why it was so newsworthy when he said, “If I were a candidate” on the day before his grand reception in Texas.)

Besides his news conference before coming to Texas and the one in San Antonio on October 11th, “The conservative Senator stopped over at Dallas Love Field briefly on his way to San Antonio for a Friday night speech” and held a “brief five-minute press conference before boarding a Braniff jet.”

It was also on October 11, 1963, that a copyrighted story appeared on page one of the Dallas Morning News stating that Barry Goldwater would announce his candidacy in early January.

On October 12, 1963, the Dallas Morning News reported that Goldwater denied he would announce his candidacy and when asked about the copyrighted story, he stated, “There is no truth in it. It is absolutely not true.” Goldwater issued the denial when he stopped at Dallas Love Field while on his way to his grand reception San Antonio.

Goldwater returned to the electoral prize of California on October 19th and fired off another volley, accusing the Kennedy Administration of “endangering the nation through ‘flagrant news management’ . . . Goldwater attacked the Administration’s handling of the announcements of four recent international developments” in a speech sponsored by the San Bernardino Sun-Telegram.

On November 10, 1963, Goldwater stated in an interview that, “Any interference in this Administration’s bungling of foreign policy would work for the better.”
In this interview, with twelve days remaining before President Kennedy visited Dallas, Goldwater was more speculative about the prospect of being President Kennedy’s opponent in 1964, using the phrases “not yet decided . . . until I am convinced . . . If and when . . . unless I decide . . . whether or not I decide.”

On November 22, 1963, “Mr. Kennedy was on his way to the Trade Mart to make a speech. It was to be a bold speech. Here in the stronghold of political conservatism, and before an audience made up largely of critics of New Frontier policies at home and abroad, he was going to accuse right-wing extremists of talking ‘just plain nonsense.’”

“Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Kennedy were riding in the rear seat of a top-down Lincoln Continental . . . Thousands had cheered the First Family as the motorcade drove in from Love Field.”

“The assassination occurred just as the President’s motorcade was leaving downtown Dallas at the end of a triumphal tour through the city’s streets . . . The original plans called only for a fast ride from the airport to a lunch at the Trade Mart . . . Mr. Kennedy himself had made the decision to ride in the slow-moving motorcade.”

Back on January 8, 1963, the Washington Post stated: “President Kennedy himself, it can be said with knowledge, does not think his re-election will be easy or can be taken for granted.”

On October 5, 1963, the Washington Post reported: “President Kennedy is now much preoccupied with his chances of winning a second term . . . Governor Connally, on his way out of the White House, had this to say to reporters: ‘I told the President that he would have a hard race in Texas . . . It would be unrealistic to think we are not going to have a tough fight there next year’ . . . Connally acknowledged that Goldwater had ‘considerable strength’ in Texas, but suggested that after the Democrats do a job on the Senator some of his strength might vanish . . . Goldwater will certainly be on Mr. Kennedy’s mind when he visits Texas on November 21-22.”

#13 Guest_Tony Frank_*

Guest_Tony Frank_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2004 - 08:37 PM

**NOTE TO JOHN SIMKIN REGARDING CIA DIRECTOR JOHN MCCONE**

He was one of the KGB officers that had infiltrated the CIA.

#14 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 28 June 2004 - 08:28 AM

The military industrial complex, the CIA (rogue elements, Bush, Phillips, Lansdale, Cabell, etc), the Mafia, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Texan Big Oil (Hunt, Murchison, Richardson, John De Menil, Byrd, Mecom, Bush), anti-Castro Cuban exiles, were all in this together. (Wim)

I cannot conceive of all these organizations coming together to conspire to kill the president of the United States. They would know that it would only take one organization to betray the operation (and they all had good reason to hurt other organizations in the cabal).

It is true that there is evidence to link all these groups and individuals to the assassination. However, that is not surprising as it was part of the original conspiracy to provide evidence that linked the assassination to these groups. This was done for two reasons: (1) to confuse the investigators and (2) to ensure that these groups participated in the cover-up.

This problem has been emphasised by the desire of some researchers to believe every bit of evidence that emerges that links any individual or organization to the assassination. This problem is made worse by linking all these evidence together. This results in developing a theory that says all these organizations were working together in a plot to kill JFK.

One of the reasons for this confusions is the failure to separate the plot and the cover-up. It is indeed true that several organizations were involved in the cover up. However, they were not working together on this. Each organization was seeking to protect itself. The original conspirators knew this would happened. That is the reason why they were implicated in the plot in the first place.

Wim, if you really believe all these groups were involved in the plot to kill JFK, you will need to explain how it was organized. I don’t mean I want to hear about the evidence (I know all about that), just the practical details of how it was organized.

In Cronies, renowned investigative reporter Robert Bryce illuminates how Texas turned its vast energy resources into political power, and how a small group of Texas corporations, lawyers and politicians use that power to protect and defend their own economic interests. Through an absorbing narrative that moves from the days of the oil boom, through the rise and reign of LBJ, to today, Bryce profiles the Texans and the Texas corporations who have wielded-and continue to wield-great power in America's domestic and foreign policy, including the Bushes, James A. Baker III, Halliburton, Baker Botts, Ray Hunt, Bell Helicopter, and more. He shows how massive transfers of wealth from the rest of the country to Texas have allowed the state to prosper. Cronies demonstrates how George W. Bush is the living embodiment of Texas' crony networks, and how those networks continue to play critical roles in the 21st century. (Lee)

I am convinced by this theory. I think that there is a good possibility that these wealthy Texas individuals provided some of the funding for the assassinations. However, I find it difficult to believe that these individuals would come anywhere near the plot itself. They would never have compromised themselves in anyway. A leading member of the Military Industrial Complex would have employed a paymaster to deal with Morales. In turn, the paymaster would have had dealings with these wealthy individuals in Texas. The fund might have been called “The Campaign Fund to Elect a Democrat President in 1964” (shades of Watergate here). However, these individuals would not have known any details of the plot. Or if it actually involved an assassination (probably thought it was part of a smear campaign). All they knew is that it involved LBJ becoming the next president of the United States. It is not even certain that the paymaster would have known what the money was for. All he knew was that Morales was being paid a large sum of money that had some connection to LBJ becoming the next president. I would not be surprised that part of Morales brief from the person who recruited him was to arrange for the death of the paymaster. It would be an interesting exercise to see which right-wing figure linked to the Military Industrial Complex died in the weeks following the assassination.

John: Congratulations on your fine web offering -- a stellar addition to the ranks. That said, I've got to cast my lot with Wim in the current discussion on who killed JFK -- there are other options to consider aside from single-element thesis (i.e. CIA or FBI or Cuban Exiles or Mafia, etc.) It has been well-documented that these organizations and factions did and do not operate independently of one another. Dulles of the CIA could put out a call to Maheu of the Mil-Ind complex, who could put out a call to Roselli of the Mafia, which could connect with the Cuban exiles, who were connected with the CIA. (Bob Cox)

It is definitely true that the CIA worked closely with the Mafia in the various Executive Action programmes (something that JFK tried to stop). The CIA also definitely funded anti-Castro organizations and the FBI worked closely with extreme right-wing political groups. However, I do not believe these organizations were linked together in planning the assassinations. 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.

As the KGB officers that had infiltrated the CIA were controlling Senator Barry Goldwater, an intelligence officer that they had targeted for political office, it made it look very much like the Military Industrial Complex was culpable. This is not a theory, it's a fact. (Tony Frank)

I would be very interested in hearing about these facts. I think it would be highly unlikely that Goldwater was a KGB officer. There is no evidence that the KGB worked in this way. The best evidence for the way the KGB worked concerns the UK. The KGB recruited left-wing, idealistic students in the UK in the early 1930s. They were then ordered to cease all left-wing activity. These men renounced their left-wing beliefs and then joined neo-fascist organizations. The did this because they knew how MI5 recruited its agents. They liked people from an establishment background who held neo-fascist views. They thought they were particularly safe with men who had flirted with left-wing ideas at university (they were the ones who appeared to be the most passionate in their hatred of communism). This is how they got people like Harold (Kim) Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and Anthony Blunt into the British secret service.

I assume the KGB would have taken a similar approach in the United States. That is why is utterly ridiculous when right-wing political leaders have pointed figures at left-wing figures in the United States and accused them of being KGB agents. The real agents would have been people who appeared to have been non-political (although their would have been evidence of them being active in right-wing politics in their youth).

There is no evidence that Goldwater did not really believe what he said. In fact, if one looks at his background he had good reason to believe what he said. It would have been impossible to have “turned” Goldwater. They would have concentrated on the type of figures they recruited in the UK. Although, it has been said, that the KGB viewed the USA different from the UK. It was claimed that the best way to recruit KGB agents was via money rather than ideology. However, that was a risky business, as this sort of spy sells himself to the highest bidder. I don’t think Goldwater was in any need of money.

Can you also answer my question in the thread on Harrelson? (Wim)

As you know, we have this discussion several times about James Files. However, I will address it again.

My information is that James Files might well have been involved in the cover up of the assassination of the JFK. We also know that the conspirators successfully implicated his close friend, Charlie Nicoletti, in the assassination. However, I am told that Files was not recruited by David Morales to take part in the actual assassination. That involved Herminio Diaz Garcia (and others I am not allowed to mention). When it come down to it, you will believe your informants, and I will believe mine. However, my informants are not attempting to seek fame and money from their exploits. Nor are they in prison. These are some of the many reasons why I find their information more believable than of others so keen to confess their role in the assassination of JFK.

#15 Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2004 - 03:42 PM

"When it come down to it, you will believe your informants, and I will believe mine. However, my informants are not attempting to seek fame and money from their exploits. Nor are they in prison."

I'm afraid, John, that I am going to be a pain in the neck for you, as I undoubtly am for Jack White and have been for Mr. della Rossa and others on other forums, which is probably my "style" you don't like.

Let me tell you that I don't like your implications. First of all, you keep saying that Files was "keen" to confess, which is simply not true, in fact he was VERY reluctant to confess, and you would know that if you had taken the trouble to read the iformation on my website, which I am pretty sure you have, as you used large parts from it in my biography information that you put up there so graciously and on your request, I might add.

However, you keep making suggestions that I have made an effort for to point out they are false, through documented events. So ... what other conclusion am I to draw that you simply do not believe me and thus question my honor and sincerity? I will take that from any member but not from a forum administrator on a forum where I post and was invited on his request.

In addition you suggest that unspecified sources are "attempting to seek fame and money from their exploits". Who do you mean, John? Files? Or me?

If you mean me, I won't leave the allegation, which I would consider to be slanderous, uncontested. I challenge you to backup it up with evidence and/or arguments.

If you mean Files, please explain to us why Files refused to sign an agreement to disclose his knowledge with Oliver Stone, arguably one of the best vehicles to "seek fame and money" in this case? Also, why did I have to move heaven and earth to persuade Files to agree to a second and final interview? Or were you not aware of these bits information? If you were aware, why should I take the suggestion from you that I put only nonsense on my website? Do you need a telephone number for Oliver Stone? Or do you need to see the agreement with only Files' signature missing?


Wim


PS: About people in prison, I think a lot of us here agree that some people should have been in there but were/are not. Instead, they were "honorable" men who pushed their "credibility" down our throat, beacme presidents and senators even. I guess in your reasoning they were more credible than persons in prison. Tosh Plumlee and Chauncey Holt were not in prison either when they came forward. Are they more credible? Or is it simply anything that comes from me?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users