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?

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?

... 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://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?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.

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

Wim

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

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.

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

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.”

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

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

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.

"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?

The term "Military Industrial Complex" was first used by Dwight Eisenhower in his last speech as president of the United States (17th January, 1961).

Eisenhower’s speech was written by Malcolm Moos. I have been reliably informed that the first draft of the speech included the term “Military Industrial Congressional Complex”. Objections were raised and was changed to “Military Industrial Complex”. You can read about Moos here:

http://www1.umn.edu/pres/05_hist_moos.html

See also:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0595d.asp

It seems suprising to me that researchers have not spent more time on John A. McCone. I thought you might be interested in his testimony before the Warren Commission report.

J. Lee Rankin: Are you familiar with the records and how they are kept by the Central Intelligence Agency as to whether a man is acting as an informer, agent, employee, or in any other capacity for that Agency?

John A. McCone: Yes; I am generally familiar with the procedures and the records that are maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Quite naturally, I am not familiar with all of the records because they are very extensive.

J. Lee Rankin: Have you determined whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspect in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy, had any connection with the Central Intelligence Agency, informer or indirectly as an employee, or any other capacity?

John A. McCone: Yes; I have determined to my satisfaction that he had no such connection...

J. Lee Rankin: Will you tell us briefly the extent of your inquiry?

John A. McCone: In a form of affidavit, I have gone into the matter in considerable detail personally, in my inquiry with the appropriate people within the Agency, examined all records in our files relating to Lee Harvey Oswald. We had knowledge of him, of course, because of his having gone to the Soviet Union, as he did, putting him in a situation where his name would appear in our name file. However, my examination has resulted in the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an agent, employee, or informant of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Agency never contacted him, interviewed him, talked with him, or received or solicited any reports or information from him, or communicated with him directly or in any other manner. The Agency never furnished him with any funds or money or compensated him directly or indirectly in any fashion, and Lee Harvey Oswald was never associated or connected directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with the Agency. When I use the term "Agency," I mean the Central Intelligence Agency, of course.

Gerald Ford: Does that include whether or not he was in the United States, in the Soviet Union, or anyplace?

John A. McCone: . Anyplace; the United States, Soviet Union, or anyplace...

Gerald Ford: Mr. McCone, do you have full authority from higher authority to make full disclosure to this Commission of any information in the files of the Central Intelligence Agency?

John A. McCone: That is right. It is my understanding that it is the desire of higher authority that this Commission shall have access to all information of every nature in our files or in the minds of employees of Central Intelligence Agency.

Gerald Ford: On the basis of that authority, you or the Agency have made a full disclosure?

John A. McCone: That is correct.


J. Lee Rankin: Mr. McCone, if I may return to you, I will now ask you if you have any credible information that you know of or evidence causing you to believe that there is any or was any conspiracy either domestic or foreign in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy?

John A. McCone: No; I have no information, Mr. Rankin, that would lead me to believe or conclude that a conspiracy existed.

Gerard Ford: Did the CIA make an investigation of this aspect of the assassination?

John A. McCone: We made an investigation of all developments after the assassination which came to our attention which might possibly have indicated a conspiracy, and we determined after these investigations, which were made promptly and immediately, that we had no evidence to support such an assumption.

Gerard Ford: Did the Central Intelligence Agency have any contact with Oswald during the period of his life in the Soviet Union?

John A. McCone: No; not to my knowledge, nor to the knowledge of those who would have been in a position to have made such contact, nor according to any record we have.

Gerard Ford: Did the Central Intelligence Agency have any personal contact with Oswald subsequent to his return to the United States?

John A. McCone: No.

J. Lee Rankin: Mr. McCone, your Agency made a particular investigation in connection with any allegations about a conspiracy involving the Soviet Union or people connected with Cuba, did you not?

John A. McCone: Yes, we did. We made a thorough, a very thorough, investigation of information that came to us concerning an alleged trip that Oswald made to Mexico City during which time he made contact with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in an attempt to gain transit privileges from Mexico City to the Soviet Union via Havana. We investigated that thoroughly.

J. Lee Rankin: Do you also include in your statement that you found no evidence of conspiracy in all of that investigation?

John A. McCone: That is correct.

J. Lee Rankin: And also the investigation you made of the period that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Soviet Union?

John A. McCone: That is right.

Allen W. Dulles: Could I ask one question there? Does your answer, Mr. McCone, include a negation of any belief that Oswald was working for or on behalf of the Soviet Union at any time when you were in contact with him or knew about his activities?

John A. McCone: As I have already stated, we were never in contact with Oswald. We have no evidence that he was working for or on behalf of the Soviet Union at any time. According to his diary, Oswald did receive a subsidy from the Soviet Red Cross which we assume had the approval of the authorities. Such a payment does not indicate to us that he even worked for the Soviet intelligence services. Furthermore, we have no other evidence that he ever worked for Soviet intelligence.

Gerard Ford: Is the Central Intelligence Agency continuing any investigation into this area?

John A. McCone: No, because, at the present time, we have no information in our files that we have not exhaustively investigated and disposed of to our satisfaction. Naturally, any new information that might come into our hands would be investigated promptly.

Goldwater wanted power. He and the right-wingers were easy to exploit. Just like our current President, George W. Bush, was easy to exploit.

They had the right-wingers supporting military coups in Latin America and repressive regimes, which simply fostered Communist insurgencies.

They mostly focused on right-wingers supporting segregation so that they could exasperate the tense racial situation of the 1960s. That was the main reason that they wanted Goldwater to be President. He supported sgregation and was opposed to civil rights.

John,

you said:

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.

I couldn't agree more that it was in the interests of the MIC to stretch the Cold War out as long as possible.

However, I disagree that keeping Cuba under Castro was part of the plan. With Castro, it was personal. And he was way too close.

"1984" had it about right. You need a distant war. Vietnam was perfect. And they were easy to get people to hate simply because they looked different. Unlike Cuba, there was no risk of it ending in a nuclear war. It could be dragged on and on.

My "villians" in this are MI and right wing group/s, possibly supported/aided by a few exiles. I believe the express purpose of the assassination was indeed, to force an invasion of Cuba. The plan went awry when Oswald was arrested. I believe the original plan called for him to be whisked out of the country and killed, though it would look like he had fled to Cuba. The evidence would point to him as Castro agent.

The key, imo, is the Hidell ID found at Tippit murder scene. This was left to tie Oswald (who by now appeared to be in Cuba) to the designated murder weapon. Tippit was probably his escort to the airport, and would have been killed even if he had delivered Oswald for the flight out. Either one or both got cold feet, and when Oswald was arrested with his own wallet, the plan fell apart.

Note that not one of the 5 cops who rode with Oswald from the TT mentioned anything about two lots of ID in their initial reports - and nor was Oswald asked about any Hidell ID until the next day when the decision was made to transfer the Hiddell ID from Tippit site wallet to Oswald wallet. The LN scenario was taking shape.

This explains why there was lack of concern about evidence of multiple gunmen. The plotters didn't care if it looked like Oswald had accomplices who also got away - so long as Castro could be blamed.

The MIC got what it wanted. Vietnam. The Cuban invasion was lost only because of Oswald's survival that afternoon.

I realise you have information which you believe to be reliable, to support the version of events you've outlined. But with respect, I have come across others who also say they have the inside story, but can't give out all the details. Until one of you do, how is it supposed to be evaluated?

Can you at least say how you get from MCone/Morales to Oswald, and how they set Oswald up?

Without the inside dope, all can do is follow the evidence. "Hidell", I believe, traces back to MI and their cronies in Dallas/NO r-w circles.

greg

As for McCone claiming that Oswald did not work for the CIA, declassified Warren Commission documents show that on January 27, 1964, less than two months after the cover-up team was established, Russell and Warren Commission member Allen W. Dulles, former Director of the CIA, discussed whether the directors of the FBI and the CIA “would truthfully answer questions on whether Lee Harvey Oswald had ever worked for either of their agencies.” (New York Times, 11-23-74, page 48)

Dulles, the former CIA Director, said, “I think under any circumstances, I think Mr. Hoover would say certainly he didn’t have anything to do with this fellow . . . I would tell the President of the United States anything. Yes, I am under his control. I wouldn’t necessarily tell anybody else, unless the President authorized me to do it.”

Russell stated, “If Oswald never had assassinated the President, or at least been charged with assassinating the President and had been in the employ of the FBI and somebody had gone to the FBI, they would have denied he was an agent,” to which Dulles responded, “Oh, yes.”

Russell then said, “They would be the first to deny it. Your agents would have done exactly the same thing,” and Dulles replied, “Exactly.”

Obviously, Russell and Dulles, of all people, decided that they couldn’t determine if Oswald worked for the CIA.

I couldn't agree more that it was in the interests of the MIC to stretch the Cold War out as long as possible. However, I disagree that keeping Cuba under Castro was part of the plan. With Castro, it was personal. And he was way too close. (Greg Parker)

I agree it was personal at first. However, the fact remains, Castro is still in power. LBJ’s claim that an invasion of Cuba would have led to a nuclear war is highly debateable. Even so, it does not explain why American presidents since the collapse of communism in 1989 have not ordered an invasion of Cuba. Surely this would be fairly easy compared to conquering Iraq. No doubt the CIA would have been willing to have discovered WMD in Cuba. Maybe Bush is saving this action for the run-up to the elections in November. The sight of Castro appearing in an American court must be worth a few thousand votes.

There's no political points in going after Castro. He's not committing any atrocities.

Neither Bush Sr nor Clinton had any motive to get Castro. George W. Bush has no motive either.

It would hurt George W. Bush, as people don't see Castro as a threat. Castro doesn't even get any press here in the states. The only news about Cuba is the possible relaxation of trade sanctions.

John,
Thank you for your kind note, about the length of my posting - you are right, I am informed of the "supposed" KNOWN facts - however, I am VERY glad to see these "brighter lights than MINE..." shining in the darkness of mis-information, deliberate dis-information and outright LIES told to the American People, not only at the time of the assassination, but throughout the intervening years.

I do have a question that perhaps you can help provide an answer to: WHY are all of the documents - those that ARE "sealed," STILL sealed until something like the year 2038?? Did "they" figure that ALL of the culpable figures involved would be dead by then? I truly don't understand - the "sealing" of these records - and WHY the American People (especially AFTER Oliver Stone's movie came out!) haven't DEMANDED the UN-sealing of these records...! ( ? )

I WOULD demand it, if I knew just exactly WHAT it is that I am looking for, and how to LEGALLY go about doing it here in the States...all I have heard are the "rumors" - unsubtantiat(ed) - (-able?) - which are confusing and obfuscating at best!

Please e-mail me personally if you have info YOU would be able to - or WANT to share about THIS particular "avenue" of exploration...

Again, thank you for your kind note - lily

I do not believe there is any existing evidence to take the matter above David Morales. It therefore is pure speculation on my part to say the assassination was ordered by the Military Industrial Complex. That is true of all theories concerning this aspect of the assassination.

However, there are several clues that enable us to point the finger at the Military Industrial Complex. Those involved not only killed JFK but planted information that implicated others in the conspiracy. The plotters did this for two reasons: (1) To guarantee that these people implicated would do all they could to cover up the crime. (2) To create confusion for those investigating the crime.

The plotters also left evidence that implicated LBJ, the CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service. All three organizations therefore took part in the cover up. They also implicated the Mafia by arranging for some of those who had part of Executive Action to be in Dallas that day. This strategy was very successful and since the 1970s the Mafia has been seen as the organizers of the assassination. In recent years, evidence has emerged that the people surrounding LBJ were also responsible.

There has also been evidence discovered linking the assassination to General Walker and the John Birch Society in Texas. Other information linked the plot to the American Communist Party and the Civil Rights Movement. Also implicated were the governments of the Soviet Union and Cuba. This has resulted in hundreds of books written about the case arguing strongly for different people being responsible for the assassination.

Who then ordered the assassination. The best way of finding an answer to this question is to look closely at the people and organisations implicated by the team run by David Morales. In theory, they can be eliminated from the investigation.

Another clue concerns what happened after the assassination. Those involved believed that the reason for this plot was that after the assassination, 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. In the period after the assassination of JFK the Cubans involved were sent on missions to Cuba where they were killed. (They were probably set up). This is what happened to Tony Cuesta. While in captivity he realised what had happened. A few Cubans remained. Some of these were the victims of hit men (who had no idea why they were killing them). Some managed to survive. Why? Maybe because they took out insurance. They let it be known that they had documented what happened. This information has been placed with lawyers, solicitors, etc., only to be opened in event of a suspicious death.

If it was the Military Industrial Complex that ordered the assassination of JFK, it was a great success. It achieved all its objectives. Rather than the end of the Cold War they got the Vietnam War and a rapid increase in arms spending.

John,
What a well written, concise reply. IMO, in particular the last three sentences sum up the broad view of what happened. Not many are able to put their thoughts into words in a manner such as you do.

Ever so happy to have come across this forum!

Antti Hynonen

That was a great post John. You make several important points, especially about the information that had people accusing all the various groups of being culpable in the assassination.

But I have to ask; Why would you reject the idea that the CIA had been infiltrated by the KGB and that they were exploiting the MIC to destroy democracy in the United States?

Does it really make sense that the people in the MIC were murderous criminals who would actually kill the President of the United States?

The KGB officers wanted to destroy democracy. They wanted Goldwater as President because they wanted racial conflict in the United States.

John, I do believe there is someone else you've left off your list, a man who on many occasions used unethical means to change the world to his liking. a man whose right hand held influence in both the CIA and the mob, and a man who could have funded the whole operation without batting an eye, Howard Hughes.

Since his right hand was Robert Maheu, and Maheu was the preferred cut-out for the CIA, it would not have been difficult at all for Maheu to have Kennedy killed by the mob and the Cubans and make it look like the CIA did it. Maheu knew (based upon the wiretapping incident) that he had a get-out-of-jail free card. It would have been no sweat at all for Maheu, Rosselli, and Giancana, with the help of a few disgruntled CIA operators--perhaps Morales, or even Barnes--to pull off the hit, knowing that LBJ, the CIA and the FBI were too cowardly to come after them. After all, LBJ had been on Carlos Marcello's payroll in the fifites, and Nixon had been in Hughes' pocket for years.

Call it gut instinct, whatever, but something tells me it was Hughes who ultimately put Maheu up to it. He had the motive, means, and opportunity, AND the almost certain knowledge he wouldn't get caught.

There is a reason James Angleton (the CIA link to the Warren Commission) showed up at Hughes' funeral and eulogized him as "Howard Hughes! Where his country's interests were concerned, no one knew his target better."

(Not coincidentally, one of Angleton's long-time CIA co-workers, testifying under the name John Scelso, informed the HSCA that there were persistent rumors of Angleton having ties to gambling interests and having secret bank accounts in central America, where the casino-owning Hughes also had interests.)

Anthony, you are sadly misguided if you think Barry Goldwater was a KGB agent. Goldwater scared the bejeesus out of everyone with his tough talk about Communism--he'd even put you to shame. Read his autobiopgraphy. Read Conscience of a Conservative. Goldwater divided the Republican Party in '64. For many years thereafter the far right wing of the party was called the Goldwater Wing of the party. Top alumni of the Goldwater Wing include George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Goldwater went on to head the Senate intelligence committee and was probably the most trusted and respected member of the senate when it came to matters of personal integrity, occupying much the same positiion as the current Senator from Arizona, John McCain. It's ludicrous to think there was anything sneaky about the guy. He told Nixon where to go during Watergate and balled out Reagan's CIA director William Casey for hiding his secret ops in Nicaragua from the Senators who were supposed to be informed. If Goldwater had been a scoundrel and had ultimately made his far-right politics un-attractive to the American people, a la Joseph McCarthy, I might think you were onto something.

'Who shot John Fitzgerald Kennedy?' is a question which will live in history.

My own views are that President Kennedy was murdered for a variety of reasons:
he was perceived by his enemies as 'going soft' on Communism: he was seen by some as a threat to their huge profits especially in the military and oil industries.

That his murder was the result of a conspiracy is evident. Evident because here we are over 40 years later and we still don't know who did it. We have a good idea and time will only increase our knowledge.

He was shot in broad daylight - literally - at 12:30 p.m. local time.
The arrogance of his assassins is breathtaking. They had planned it so well. They took every precaution to pin the blame on an innocent man and yet the fingerprints of these vile assassins are all over the foul deed.

Will the truth ever be known?

The truth IS known!

The full truth, however, may take years to reveal itself but, as they say, 'the truth will out!'



EBC

The meeting took place in a favorite wartering hole downtown Vientaine Laos in a semi-private group of tables at the rear of the "Club" not far from the old USOM mission HDQs, and was a common place to congregate after work as it were. Present at the meeting was; Luong Winh Nguyen, one of Ho Chi Minh's Security officers and the most senior CIA mole in Ho's governmemt, and the resident expert of Kong Le and his Pathet Lao allies; General Vang Pao, commander of the Hmong Tribesmen and his CIA handler, James W. (Bill) Lair, The CIA's far eastern paramilitary expert and creator of PARU from specially recruited and trained Thai military forces; US Special Forces, Lt. Col. Arthor (Bull) Simons and his attache, Major Richard Meadows in charge of all tactical operations under the designation of "Operation Whitestar"; Brig. Gen. Edward G. Lansdale, chief of SE Asian Operations, and Ted Shackley the CIA's SE Asian Station Chief.

These seven men had basically set up and were running the Golden Triangle Opium and Heroin processing operations after the French got the boot in '58.

The year was 1961 and the Kennedy administration was less than a year old and already JFK was talking about pulling the plug on the whole operation, and naturally, this was the principal topic of conversation and stratagy planning. The theme being, how were they going to continue in operation if and when JFK pulled the plug.

General Nguyen correctly assessed that Kong Le was amassing a force in northern Laos and would attack at the first indication of an American pullout. General Vang Pao declared he could field up to 35,000 Hmong forces but wanted to relocate his Heroin refinery out of the Coka Cola plant in Vientaine to a secret location known as LC-50.

It was decided that Bull Simons and Major Meadows would recruit up to 8,000 volunteers to be "Sheep-Dipped" into civilian advisors and put under the direct command of Bill Lair and be officially designated civilian advisors and stationed in Unorn, Thailand giving plausable deniability to everyone involved. This would also involve the Air America Jocks who were transporting the drugs.

When queried as to how Lansdale's boss General Maxwell D, Taylor, JFK's National Security Advisor would react to this decision and how JFK would respond upon being briefed by General Taylor, Shackley speakng for Lansdale stated in no uncertain terms that JFK was out of the loop and would soon be out of the game entirely, to which Lansdale agreed.

Bill Lair then asked how could they possibly keep the presence of 8,000 American advisors in Laos a secret and Bull Simons simply declared that no one would be allowed to leave alive, to which Major Meadows made a reference to stocks of nerve-gas being shipped to Johnston Island for storage, some of which could be easily diverted to Udorn for use as a broad area saturation agent, and to be used in conjunction with individual hunter-killer special sanitation teams.

My scource for this story was old-man Winh himself Whom I extracted from Udon[Udorn] Thani Thailand in early August of 1970. He subsequently opened a resterant in Englewood Co. called, The Siagon Palace where his family works feeding PhuVan and NucMom to an upscale crowd to this day. I visit generally once a year. Also certain facts of the meeting were varified to me personally by Michael Cormier, the grandson of Admiral Firth of the O.N.I._now deceased thus my exposure of him as a scource.

In later August 1970, I was informed by another 2 independent scources that elements of the 507th and 524th transportation companies stationed at Ft. Eustice Va. were dispatched to Johnston Island where they took control of some 400 Sarin filled GU-34 cluster bombs which they transported to a secret location inside Laos known as Lima Sierra 54[LS-54] Pao's HDQTRS which were ultimately deployed to sanitize the region during Operation Tailwind which BTW, was only a small facet of the overall operation. Thousands of Americans and Hmong tribesmen were killed.

At the time of the meeting, these principals were already conteplating killing JFK who stood to disrupt a 100 billion dollar a year operation and it is my personal view that when JFK signed NSAM-263 the prosecution of his assassination began in earnest.

Respectfully,
John Ritchson

There seems to be a problem with a 1961 meeting including Shackley as he had not served in SE Asia at that point, was coming off duty in Berlen as first Deputy of Operations and then COS at JMWAVE in Miami?

He did not go to SE Asia and Laos until 1966.

-- Larry

*******
Would you be privy to infomation pertaining to whether or not these "same people" are members of the "CFR, the Trilateral Commision and the "Illuminati" ? It would be interesting to see if THIS a common threds to all of these people, in varying combinations of course...I just wondered if anyone else 'out there" would happen to have member names for these orgs...
*******

Howdy Larry, you are of course entirely correct in so far as Shackley would not have been station chief at the time of the meeting. However, it is no great matter to zip in to town for a meeting as it were and since the meeting itself was covert and none of the principals have ever admitted to its occurance, except old Winh himself I see no particular problem with Shackley's presence at that point in time.
And since his presence was varified by a number of independent scources I can only conclude he was in fact at the meeting, although his purpose for attending, his agenda, and who or what he represented remains unclear.

No. The people concerned were involved with a variety of different organizations. This includes Interpen (Intercontinental Penetration Force) and anti-Castro Cuban groups such as Alpha 66. Also involved were people who had done secret freelance work for the CIA.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKalpha.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKinterpen.htm

If Howard Hughes had been involved in the assassination he possibly fits into the Military Industrial Complex category.

During the Second World War Hughes was awarded two contracts, of $18m and $22m each, to create and build two revolutionary aircraft - a giant plywood cargo seaplane that could carry thirty-five tons of men and weapons (HK-1), and a very fast photo-reconnaissance aircraft (F-11).

In 1946 Owen Brewster, chairman of the Senate War Investigating Committee, announced that he was very concerned that the government had given Hughes $40m for the development and production of two aircraft that had never been delivered. Brewster also pointed out the President Franklin D. Roosevelt had overruled his military experts in order to hand out the contracts to Hughes for the F-11 and HK-1 (also known as the Spruce Goose).

Brewster also pointed out that Hughes had provided "softening-up parties" for government officials. Howard paid movie starlets $200 to attend these parties. Their duties included swimming nude in Hughes's swimming pool. Julius Krug, the chief of the War Production Board, was someone who often attended these parties. One congressman who was also a frequent guest at Hughes's home claimed: "If those girls were paid two hundred dollars, they were greatly underpaid".

Hughes, accused of corruption, leaked information to journalists, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, that Owen Brewster was being paid by Pan American Airways (Pan Am) to cause trouble. According to Hughes, Pan Am was trying to persuade the United States government to set up an official worldwide monopoly under its control. Part of this plan was to force all existing American carriers with overseas operations to close down or merge with Pan Am. As the owner of Trans World Airlines, Hughes posed a serious threat to this plan. Hughes claimed that Brewster had approached him and suggested he merge Trans World with Pan Am. When Hughes refused Brewster began a smear campaign against him.

Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson believed Hughes and began their own campaign against Owen Brewster. They reported that Pan Am had provided Bewster with free flights to Hobe Sound, Florida, where he stayed free of charge at the holiday home of Pan Am Vice President Sam Pryor. These charges were repeated by Hughes when he appeared before the Senate War Investigating Committee. He also accused Brewster of trying to blackmail him into merging Trans World with Pan Am. Brewster denied the charge but it helped divert attention away from the charge that Hughes had wasted $40m of government money.

The Senate War Investigating Committee never completed its report on the non-delivery of the F-11 and the HK-1. The committee stopped meeting and was eventually disbanded. Hughes got away with his $40m.

Hughes was always seen as an opponent of JFK. However, this might not have been the case. During the 1960 presidential campaign someone leaked another story to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson (was it Hughes again). Apparently, in 1956 the Hughes Tool Company provided a $205,000 loan to Nixon Incorporated, a company run by Richard's brother, F. Donald Nixon. The money was never paid back. Soon after the money was paid the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reversed a previous decision to grant tax-exempt status to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

This information was revealed by Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson during the presidential campaign. Nixon initially denied the loan but later was forced to admit that this money had been given to his brother. It was claimed that this story helped John F. Kennedy defeat Nixon in the election.

It is true that Hughes was linked to the assassination via Robert Maheu. In the late 1950s Hughes began employing Maheu, a former FBI agent and veteran of CIA counter-espionage activities, on a freelance basis. This included intimidating would be blackmailers and obtaining information on business rivals.

In 1960 Richard Bissell and Allen W. Dulles decided to work with the Mafia in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. Maheu was employed by the CIA to organize the conspiracy. The advantage of employing the Mafia for this work is that it provided CIA with a credible cover story. The Mafia were known to be angry with Castro for closing down their profitable brothels and casinos in Cuba. If the assassins were killed or captured the media would accept that the Mafia were working on their own.

In 1966 Hughes sold his TWA stock for $546m and moved to Las Vegas where he used his money to buy up four hotels and six casinos. He employed Robert Maheu to oversee this business.

If Hughes had been involved in the assassination he would have been very foolish to have used Maheu in the plot. Maheu was well-known to have been closely linked to Hughes.

By the way, has anyone read Maheu’s book, Next to Hughes (1993)? Does it say anything about the assassination of JFK?

Maheu was still alive in 2000? Is he still alive? Has anyone interviewed him about what he knows about the assassination?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhughesH.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmaheu.htm

[snipped for brevity]

John Simkin stated, " Or can we fight back?"




Greetings and well said:-) You have pretty much spelled out the thinking of a great many people. It is my thinking that the roots of much of the current world situation lays in the killing of JFK, and it is for this reason if for no other that we must fight back. We must fight back by education, by raising the global conciousness of the entire planet, to drag it kicking and screeming into the 21st century. We must fight back by restoring sanity to a world that very often seems to have gone crazy. We must fight back by instituting a new paradigm into the world conciousness in which people are more important than property, cooperation is superior to competition, and the highest order humans may aspire to is community not empire. We must fight back by becoming better stewards to this planet.

I am not contemplating a utopian pipe-dream but simply a better world for our posterity. History will demand an accounting. How then will we answer?

John, I didn't include Hughes in the MIC because I believe they had different motivations. While the MIC was organized and all about the $, I believe Hughes was more about the power and that he was basically insane.

Maheu's book was one of the main sources of information which led me to conclude Hughes may have been involved. Maheu is still alive and living in Las Vegas I believe.

Some of the reasons why I'm suspicious of their involvement.

The first attempts on Castro, including the Sturgis/Lorenz attempt, preceded official CIA involvement by months. This leads me to suspect that Maheu convinced the CIA to go after Castro. In his book he details how he was hired by Niarchos, Onassis' brother-in-law, to disrupt Onassis' oil business. Maheu then approached Richard Nixon, who made it a CIA operation and footed the bill. So there's a precedent. The Nixon angle is important. One of Maheu's business partners worked with Nixon and was traveling with Nixon throughout the 1960 campaign, not coincidentally, when the plans for the Bay of Pigs were formalized. Strangely, no one at the CIA could remember where the idea for the assassination came from--Sheff Edwards seemed to think the mafia (through Maheu, no doubt) approached him.

When Maheu approached Roselli, he said that Roselli immediately suspected it was for the CIA, and he admitted it. THIS IS INCREDIBLY UNPROFESSIONAL, destroying the whole reason for his involvement! He was the cut-out. The knowledge that the CIA was officially involved amounted to a get-out-of-jail free card for the participants. Roselli, Giancana and Maheu all used it to their advantage over the next few years.

Maheu, out of some misguided professional loyalty, also told Howard Hughes of the plots. ONCE AGAIN, THIS WAS INCREDIBLY UNPROFESSIONAL. The fact that Maheu was hired by Hughes to hush up the Hughes loan story, but that Nixon over-ruled him and leaked it himself, only to have it explode in his face, may have led Maheu to want to give Hughes something for his money.

Maheu, when testifying before the Church committee, said that the only murders he was aware of in regards to Cuba were performed by the Kennedy Administration when they allowed the invasion at the Bay of Pigs to continue after calling off the air strike.

Towards the end of his book, Maheu brags that Giancana thanked him for never talking about the CIA/Mafia plots. This is b.s. Maheu had been talking about his involvement for years in order to avoid prosection on wiretapping charges, etc. Giancana himself bragged about his own involvement. It seems likely that the "thanks" was for not talking about something else.

Finally, I think it is important to note that even Hughes came to conclude that Maheu was ultimately in bed with the mob.

As for Hughes' insanity, it has been acknowledged that Hughes tried to bribe LBJ to escalate the Vietnam war, for the primary purpose of selling more helicopters. He also tried to buy ABC, so that he could control programming and prevent the showing of movies depicting black people in a sexual light.

That's just a start.

The story of the loan was first obtained by Drew Pearson. Jack Anderson, who worked for Pearson, claims in his book, Confessions of a Muckraker, that the story originally came from James McInerney (Assistant Attorney General under Truman). Pearson’s hatred of Nixon dates back to the fact that he persuaded Joe McCarthy to accuse Pearson of being a communist. This lost Pearson his radio sponsors. His syndicated column was also banned by several newspapers.

Pearson was determined to use the story against Nixon during the presidential campaign. For maximum impact, Pearson planned to publish two weeks before the election. Nixon discovered Pearson had the story and decided to go public with it 16 days before the election. However, Nixon claimed that the loan came from Frank Waters, rather than Howard Hughes. This plan backfired when Waters admitted he had been “acting for Howard Hughes with the approval and knowledge of the Vice President”.

Pearson had a close relationship with Hughes. Pearson helped out Hughes in exchange for information about conservative politicians. Therefore, I suspect the information really came from Hughes and not McInerney.

Pearson and Anderson also worked closely with LBJ. They in fact favoured LBJ over JFK in the 1960 campaign to become the Democratic Party candidate. However, when JFK became the candidate they used their smear stories against Nixon.

Interestingly, LBJ used Anderson to smear Don B. Reynolds when he offered to provide evidence of the president’s corruption. However, this does not appear in Anderson’s books, Confessions of a Muckraker and Peace, War and Politics.

It was also Anderson who was responsible for the story that the Mafia was responsible for the assassination of JFK (1971). Anderson claims the story originally came from the attorney Edward P. Morgan. I suspect the story really came from the people behind the assassination. The lone gunman story was falling apart and they needed a group (rather than an individual) to blame for the assassination. The Mafia was the ideal choice. Maheu eventually told Anderson the story of what happened. However, I believe he was still working for the CIA when he did this. This is not to say the CIA/Mafia meeting did not happen. It just had nothing to do with the assassination of JFK.

John, you neglected to mention LBJ's most egregious use of Pearson/Anderson. While Morgan had given Pearson the Roselli story that blamed the assassination attempts on Bobby's lust for Castro's death, and purported that these assassins were tortured by Castro, came back and killed JFK, in early 67 (An obvious bit of disinformation as far as I'm concerned.) the story didn't appear for weeks later, the day after RFK embarrassed LBJ by coming out against the war. I don't believe this was a coincidence.

I agree. Jack Anderson was used several times by Johnson/CIA to provide disinformation on the assassination. They were less successful at using Drew Pearson who was highly suspicious of LBJ. The other important disinformation journalist was Dick Billings. Both Anderson and Billings could be relied upon to publish false information at the appropriate time. I suspect Billings knew what was going on (he was involved in the conspiracy before JFK was killed – see Operation Tilt). However, Anderson, was so keen to publish any scoop he was easily manipulated (especially after his wise boss, Drew Pearson, had died).

Anderson and Billings were both active in providing disinformation at key times in the story. This including the time of the Garrison inquiry. Anderson and Billings were both involved in trying to direct Garrison’s attention towards the Mafia and away from the anti-Castro groups in New Orleans. When that failed, they both became involved in a smear campaign suggesting that Garrison was under the control of organized crime.

Anderson and Billings were both involved in the same strategy during the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation. After forcing the resignation of Richard Sprague, G. Robert Blakey was appointed as chief counsel. He immediately recruited Dick Billings as Editorial Director of the HSCA.

G. Robert Blakey and Dick Billings did what they could to shift attention away from the CIA and the anti-Castro Cubans. In 1981 they published The Plot to Kill the President. In the book they argued that Lee Harvey Oswald did kill John F. Kennedy. However, a second gunman, fired from the "grassy knoll" but missed.

Blakey and Billings went on to argue that the conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by Kennedy’s anti-crime program. Suspects named included Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante and James Hoffa.
The testimony of John Martino was ignored. Nor did the authors explain how these criminals managed to persuade Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, the FBI and members of the Warren Commission to cover-up the crime.

I believe Anderson and Billings are still alive. Has anyone tried to interview them about these issues?

John;

I believe rogue elements of the CIA were the actual shooters. With the cooperation of a few well placed friends in the FBI, Secret Service and The White House (Johnson's White House.) I do NOT believe the mafia was involved because they didn't have the power to cover up the conspiracy. There were only 2 people on earth that had the power to do that and to benifit from the assassination of Kennedy. Both attained something that they had wanted since their government careers started. One wanted at least four years and the other wanted a lifetime in their respective jobs.

Thanks for a great Forum!!

Mike

The highest level at which the actual conspiracy could ever be shown would be Lansdale, then Morales/Shackley/Phillips/Hunt, then a notch down would be anti-Castro/CIA/Mafioso Johnny Roselli (Roselli conveniently tracks back to everyone). But if we're talking about who really did the deed, and not just about approval or quiescence, then the most intriguing is Howard Hughes, through Maheu, then to Roselli. . . . This is Big Oil/Military Industrial Complex/Mafia/POWER. And then of course, there is the fact that Hughes was mad as a hatter. I believe that Angleton and Hoover had serious institutional reasons for covering-up after-the-fact, Oswald having been one of Angleton's in Russia, and then one of Hoover's in Dallas.

Tim

Tim,

This is indeed an intriguing angle. It's probably way too early in my research to be posting this but I noticed that Tosh has joined the forum and there is a slim chance he may be able to identify this guy below.

This character worked as a bodyguard for Hughes during the early 1960's. I have not been able to find out much about him except that he has a background in the military and that he was familiar to several anti-Castro players during 1963.

This photo was taken in San Diego, 1962.

James

Clarence Douglass Dillon took Dillon, Read and Co. through the late nineteen thirties as V.P. and executive, from the Council on Foreign Relations he entered the Eisenhower Administration as a top domestic policy advisor and undersecretary of State. His interests, like Nelson Rockefeller's, in U.S. foreign policy centered on Latin America. Clarence Dillon, Douglass Dillon's father was enormously notorious in the early days of Dillon, Read and the Wall Street interests of this Republican helped embody John Kennedy's bipartisan, centrist conciliating approach.

Clarence Dillon pressed for tax cuts, and foreign export expansion. He was ambassador to France in 1950's during the Vietnamese and Algerian colonial denouement...

If the unspeakable truth of domestic American political violence is my general theme, and the theory that JFK's murder was effected by his militant reactionary opposition, I add a third plank... it was done under color of law, via secret and classified findings, ultimately authorized and implemented by Vice President Johnson and Treasury Secretary Dillon, as this is the only inductive and deductive model that explains Kennedy's administration, death, cover-up and the 25th amendment...I believe he was declared to have "incapacity" by a rising group inside the KGB, I mean the CIA, who got the support of Dillon, Johnson, and Hoover, using the plans and operations available to William Sullivan, Emory Roberts, Tracy Barnes, David A. Phillips and other high ranking US officials

The military industrial complex is a theoretical political structure too large to act as a single agent in a murder. It is better to say that John Kennedy's Militant Reactionary Political Opposition (both in and out of offices of power) conspired on secret and spurious grounds, to carry out a coup d'etat. This has become the unspeakable truth of American Political violence and it is not a subject for polite discourse or civil society, apparently.

We now have a large number of responsible characters and we should link them in the overarching political structure described in 1965 in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.


[attachmentid=4794][attachmentid=4795]

Actually, I believe a mercury load would obliterate a small caliber entry wound. Here is the photo with the blackened triangle in the temple area, also showing what appears to be a small caliber entry wound just over the right eyebrow:

[attachmentid=509]

Shanet said: "......I've read Maheu's book, and the book taken from the Hughes notebooks, and if they were involved in Dallas they covered their tracks---Maheu moved in those mob/agency circles and probably knew stuff, but he wasn't a principal player, I don't think so..."

Knowing the stuff Maheu knew made him a prinicipal player, regardless of how remarkably he managed to keep his hands clean. Not only was Maheu the man sufficiently connected to both the Mob and CIA to bring them together, he was the closest person to Roselli, who spread into all aspects. When you read the years of FBI surveillance of Roselli, you see how prominant a role the Desert Inn in Las Vegas plays. By 1966, as we know, Howard Hughes was into his full-blown craziness hidden away on the top floor of the Desert Inn storing his urine in jars, with his only contact to his business empire being Maheu, who had a luxurious, air-curtained home right on the Desert Inn golf course. The FBI surveillance repeatedly records losing Roselli when he would be seen heading to the rear of the Desert Inn. During the post-Watergate disclosures, when the existence of the Glomar Explorer was revealed, the Hughes organization claimed it belonged to the CIA, and the CIA claimed it belonged to Hughes. At that point of the merger of the Mafia/CIA/Military Industrial Complex/National Security State, there was no longer a clear distinction between Hughes/Maheu and the government, while Maheu's active support for Roselli never dimmed. And don't forget that the principal reason given for the Watergate break-in was to find out what Larry O'Brien, recently retained by Hughes, and the Democrats knew about Nixon's long-term financial support from Hughes. The whole enchilada, beginning with the CIA's initial approach to the Mafia for an assassination capability, to JFK's betrayals and Roselli's alternative funding for anti-Castro efforts (including provision of Hughes' Sal Cay), to Dallas to Watergate, involved the personal relationship between Maheu and Roselli, and their mutual benefactor, the richest, craziest and probably most powerful man in the world, Howard Hughes.

Tim

Tim
good posting...I agree with all those specifics, I had forgotten how tight Roselli and Maheu were...I'm still having trouble moving Hughes/Maheu up into a more directly causative role...just too many others ahead of them in line...and Larry O'brien/Hughes may have been a red herring thrown over the Watergate burglary.....I know Hughes PR/security man Robert Bennett had ties to Hunt and CIA (see Hougan's Secret Agenda and Colodny's Silent Coup) ... Hughes was a military contractor that benefitted from escalation in LAOS, CAMBODIA and VIETNAM, helicopters and tools, I believe, and the Glomar sunken Soviet sub hunt he participated in definitely shows a close association of CIA/MI and Hughes circa 1973...what a crazy bastard, and to be that powerful...always like your posts, thanks also for the overview on Wm. Tosh Plumlee's experience, that was very helpful.

ps. Those morgue pix are surely compromised, but thanks for refreshing my memory. Its all ambiguous, and meant to be.


Shanet