All you have to do to get the truth is to compare what Dorothy Kilgallen said on November 29, 1963, with what J. Edgar Hoover said on that very same day.
The truth is really simple, as long as the truth-tellers are not constantly targeted.
Full Version: Richard Nixon and the Kennedy Assassination.
Well Owen, I was expecting you to comment and you did not. Are you a Nixon fan?
Did you read this part?
Indeed, it is a documented, proven fact that Nixon's cronies plotted outright political murder (Jack Anderson was lucky to survive.) He was scheming to have people beaten up. He associated with mobsters. Nazi propaganda films were being shown in the White House. His men schemed to burglarize Republican headquarters and blame it on the Democrats. They schemed to plant McGovern campaign literature in the apartment of Art Brehmer, the would-be assassin of George Wallace, and the evidence strongly suggests they probably even schemed to assassinate Ted Kennedy, and after having failed, they blamed the fortunate survivor for the death of unintended victim, Mary Jo Kopechne.
Indeed, Nixon's memoirs are littered with evidence that as far as he was concerned, Chappaquiddick was nothing more than an election issue, it had nothing to do with a tragic murder. To quote Richard Nixon directly:
In the short term, I knew that Chappaquiddick would undermine Kennedy's role as a leader of the opposition to the administration's policies. In the longer term, it would be one of his greatest liabilities if he decided to run for President in 1972. It was clear that the full story of what had happened that night on Chappaquidick had not come out, [how did he know, did his plan misfire?] and I suspected that the press would not try very hard to uncover it. Therefore I told Ehrlichman to have someone investigate the case for us and get the real facts out. [we all know what that means in Nixon-speak.] "Don't let up on this for a minute," I said. "Just put yourself in their place if something like that happened to us." In fact, our private
investigator was unable to turn out anything besides rumors.
Needless to say, the truth was damaging to Richard Nixon, because if it wasn't, he would not have to rely on rumors about Chappaquiddick , for political advantage. The truth is, Nixon feared another Kennedy candidacy and Chappaquiddick was Richard Nixon's failed attempt to assassinate yet another political rival.
Read the entire article, it's covers the Kennedy assassination as well.
Did you read this part?
Indeed, it is a documented, proven fact that Nixon's cronies plotted outright political murder (Jack Anderson was lucky to survive.) He was scheming to have people beaten up. He associated with mobsters. Nazi propaganda films were being shown in the White House. His men schemed to burglarize Republican headquarters and blame it on the Democrats. They schemed to plant McGovern campaign literature in the apartment of Art Brehmer, the would-be assassin of George Wallace, and the evidence strongly suggests they probably even schemed to assassinate Ted Kennedy, and after having failed, they blamed the fortunate survivor for the death of unintended victim, Mary Jo Kopechne.
Indeed, Nixon's memoirs are littered with evidence that as far as he was concerned, Chappaquiddick was nothing more than an election issue, it had nothing to do with a tragic murder. To quote Richard Nixon directly:
In the short term, I knew that Chappaquiddick would undermine Kennedy's role as a leader of the opposition to the administration's policies. In the longer term, it would be one of his greatest liabilities if he decided to run for President in 1972. It was clear that the full story of what had happened that night on Chappaquidick had not come out, [how did he know, did his plan misfire?] and I suspected that the press would not try very hard to uncover it. Therefore I told Ehrlichman to have someone investigate the case for us and get the real facts out. [we all know what that means in Nixon-speak.] "Don't let up on this for a minute," I said. "Just put yourself in their place if something like that happened to us." In fact, our private
investigator was unable to turn out anything besides rumors.
Needless to say, the truth was damaging to Richard Nixon, because if it wasn't, he would not have to rely on rumors about Chappaquiddick , for political advantage. The truth is, Nixon feared another Kennedy candidacy and Chappaquiddick was Richard Nixon's failed attempt to assassinate yet another political rival.
Read the entire article, it's covers the Kennedy assassination as well.
And if that's not enough, folks, the article (by none other than Mat Wilson) informs us that Frenchy was Charles Harrelson! Who would have thunk it?
That's right and that's the most incredible part !
!
Charles Harrelson was a contract killer and according to Jack Anderson, whom Nixon tried to have killed, he was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Harrelson is believed to be one of the gunmen behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. Harrelson was one of the three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza on 22nd November, 1963, along with Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt. In 1992, the Dallas Police Department claimed that the three tramps were Gus Abrams, John F. Gedney and Harold Doyle, but their photographs do not match.
In 1968 Harrelson was convicted of the murder of businessman, Sam Degelia, in a contract killing in South Texas. After serving time he was released, and in 1979 Harrelson was paid $250,000 by drug dealers to assassinate Federal Judge John H. Wood. On 29th May, 1979, Wood was shot dead, the first federal judge to be murdered in the 20th century.
When he was arrested for murdering a federal judge he confessed to being one of the gunmen who shot at President John F. Kennedy. He later withdrew this confession, but the admission is more credible than the denial. He received two life sentences for the murder of Wood in a criminal investigation which proved to be more expensive than the investigation in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In 1995 Harrelson attempted to break out of Atlanta Federal Prison. He was recaptured and moved to Florence Administrative Maximum Penitentiary in Colorado.
Charles Harrelson is also a former Jack Ruby Strip Bar Bouncer, and if that doesn't push all the skeptics over the fence, nothing ever will. In retrospect, if Jack Ruby could not rely on the man who committed paid murders for the mob, it is because Charles Harrelson had met his quota for November, 1963.
Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news interviewed Harrelson on the judge Wood case and subsequently asked him about his claims of murdering the President. Cook said that Harrelson ‘got this sly little grin on his face, Harrelson is very intelligent and has a way of not answering when it suits him.’ At a later interview Cook brought the subject up again and at that point Harrelson became very serious, Cook quoted Harrelson as saying "Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had" and added "November 22,
1963. You remember that!". Most of the time, when Harrelson has been questioned with regard to the assassination he has emphatically denied it, but Cook showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was "amazed at the similarities." Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance.
If you are a real Kennedy Assassination buff, you will soak up every single word here:!
Did you check out that picture on the website?
Click to view attachment
!
Charles Harrelson was a contract killer and according to Jack Anderson, whom Nixon tried to have killed, he was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Harrelson is believed to be one of the gunmen behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. Harrelson was one of the three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza on 22nd November, 1963, along with Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt. In 1992, the Dallas Police Department claimed that the three tramps were Gus Abrams, John F. Gedney and Harold Doyle, but their photographs do not match.
In 1968 Harrelson was convicted of the murder of businessman, Sam Degelia, in a contract killing in South Texas. After serving time he was released, and in 1979 Harrelson was paid $250,000 by drug dealers to assassinate Federal Judge John H. Wood. On 29th May, 1979, Wood was shot dead, the first federal judge to be murdered in the 20th century.
When he was arrested for murdering a federal judge he confessed to being one of the gunmen who shot at President John F. Kennedy. He later withdrew this confession, but the admission is more credible than the denial. He received two life sentences for the murder of Wood in a criminal investigation which proved to be more expensive than the investigation in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In 1995 Harrelson attempted to break out of Atlanta Federal Prison. He was recaptured and moved to Florence Administrative Maximum Penitentiary in Colorado.
Charles Harrelson is also a former Jack Ruby Strip Bar Bouncer, and if that doesn't push all the skeptics over the fence, nothing ever will. In retrospect, if Jack Ruby could not rely on the man who committed paid murders for the mob, it is because Charles Harrelson had met his quota for November, 1963.
Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news interviewed Harrelson on the judge Wood case and subsequently asked him about his claims of murdering the President. Cook said that Harrelson ‘got this sly little grin on his face, Harrelson is very intelligent and has a way of not answering when it suits him.’ At a later interview Cook brought the subject up again and at that point Harrelson became very serious, Cook quoted Harrelson as saying "Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had" and added "November 22,
1963. You remember that!". Most of the time, when Harrelson has been questioned with regard to the assassination he has emphatically denied it, but Cook showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was "amazed at the similarities." Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance.
If you are a real Kennedy Assassination buff, you will soak up every single word here:!
Did you check out that picture on the website?
Click to view attachment
I've seen several pictures of Charles Harrelson, Mat or whoever you are. But if he has the "same hairline" as Frenchy, years later (the poor guy's going bald in the slammer), it musta been him!
Ron, are you talking to me? Who is Frenchy?
By the way, I think you need to factor in the aging process when you consider "hairline evidence" I think you re overreacting here.
Read this again, I think his wife is in a better position to judge than you are:
"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news interviewed Harrelson on the judge Wood case and subsequently asked him about his claims of murdering the President. Cook said that Harrelson ‘got this sly little grin on his face, Harrelson is very intelligent and has a way of not answering when it suits him.’ At a later interview Cook brought the subject up again and at that point Harrelson became very serious, Cook quoted Harrelson as saying "Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had" and added "November 22, 1963. You remember that!". Most of the time, when Harrelson has been questioned with regard to the assassination he has emphatically denied it, but Cook showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "
By the way, I think you need to factor in the aging process when you consider "hairline evidence" I think you re overreacting here.
Read this again, I think his wife is in a better position to judge than you are:
"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news interviewed Harrelson on the judge Wood case and subsequently asked him about his claims of murdering the President. Cook said that Harrelson ‘got this sly little grin on his face, Harrelson is very intelligent and has a way of not answering when it suits him.’ At a later interview Cook brought the subject up again and at that point Harrelson became very serious, Cook quoted Harrelson as saying "Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had" and added "November 22, 1963. You remember that!". Most of the time, when Harrelson has been questioned with regard to the assassination he has emphatically denied it, but Cook showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "
I thought I'd get serious input here because it's all relevant to the kennedy assassination, but people like Owens just want to talk about Howard Dean.
I really don't get this.
Anyways, goodnight, I thought I was here to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
I think people's political views are denying impartial discussion here.
I really don't get this.
Anyways, goodnight, I thought I was here to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
I think people's political views are denying impartial discussion here.
gone
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 12:18 AM) 
...
I think people's political views are denying impartial discussion here.
I think people's political views are denying impartial discussion here.
No.
Your meaningless and mindless spam is clogging the boards.
I don't know your purpose here, but it certainly isn't to learn about the assassination or to truly research it. If that was truly the case, you would be reading more, using more sources, and posting less.
In the words of Abraham Lincoln:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. "
For the benefit of those who have read this thread and the “great read” that is linked to in the original post, I want to point out the disinformation and apparent plagiarism that has been presented here.
First, there is this factoid that caught my attention in the “great read” by “Mat Wilson”:
That is certainly news to me. Is it news to everyone else? I wonder what his source for this was (I assume that Jack Ruby Strip Bar, being capitalized, is supposed to mean the Carousel Club), but of course the article doesn’t cite any sources.
On Harrelson’s wife being “amazed at the similarities” between the tramp and her husband, she was referring to the tall blond tramp, identified by Lois Gibson as Harrelson. In the article her words have been taken out of context to make the reader believe she was referring to the short tramp Frenchy, which is of course ridiculous. But that didn’t stop the poster, who doesn’t even know who “Frenchy” refers to, from coming here to link us to this “great read.”
Next, consider this passage from the “great read”:
Compare the similarity of the above, for the most part identical wording, to this passage from the article “Dirty Politics” by Mark Edwards (I found this by simply Googling the phrase “shocked Richard Nixon”):
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
If you want something more obvious than that, and closer to home, consider this passage from the Wilson article, with no source credited, to the passage that follows it from John Geraghty’s online seminar “Charles Voyd Harrison,” which John posted on November 24, 2004 with footnoted sources:
From John Geraghty’s seminar:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2371
First, there is this factoid that caught my attention in the “great read” by “Mat Wilson”:
QUOTE
Charles Harrelson is also a former Jack Ruby Strip Bar Bouncer, and if that doesn't push all the skeptics over the fence, nothing ever will.
That is certainly news to me. Is it news to everyone else? I wonder what his source for this was (I assume that Jack Ruby Strip Bar, being capitalized, is supposed to mean the Carousel Club), but of course the article doesn’t cite any sources.
On Harrelson’s wife being “amazed at the similarities” between the tramp and her husband, she was referring to the tall blond tramp, identified by Lois Gibson as Harrelson. In the article her words have been taken out of context to make the reader believe she was referring to the short tramp Frenchy, which is of course ridiculous. But that didn’t stop the poster, who doesn’t even know who “Frenchy” refers to, from coming here to link us to this “great read.”
Next, consider this passage from the “great read”:
QUOTE
Nixon falsely claimed that the first he heard of Kennedy's death was during a taxi ride in New York City, however, a UPI photo reveals the truth. The photo shows a "shocked Richard Nixon" [HIS Dealy Plaza, 'hobo' act] having already learned of Kennedy's assassination upon his arrival at New York's Idlewild Airport --BEFORE his alleged taxi ride. Perhaps, Richard Nixon does not want us to know who picked him up at the airport, who he talked to or what he said, but he doesn't have to lie to us.
Compare the similarity of the above, for the most part identical wording, to this passage from the article “Dirty Politics” by Mark Edwards (I found this by simply Googling the phrase “shocked Richard Nixon”):
QUOTE
Nixon said that he first heard about Kennedy's death during a taxi ride in New York City. However, a United Press International photo taken that day tells a different story. The photo shows a "shocked Richard Nixon" (as the caption reads) having already learned of Kennedy's assassination upon his arrival at New York's Idlewild Airport--in other words, before his alleged taxi ride. Perhaps Nixon was trying to deflect attention from the fact that the plane he had arrived on had originated from Dallas, Texas.
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
If you want something more obvious than that, and closer to home, consider this passage from the Wilson article, with no source credited, to the passage that follows it from John Geraghty’s online seminar “Charles Voyd Harrison,” which John posted on November 24, 2004 with footnoted sources:
QUOTE
Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news interviewed Harrelson on the judge Wood case and subsequently asked him about his claims of murdering the President. Cook said that Harrelson ‘got this sly little grin on his face, Harrelson is very intelligent and has a way of not answering when it suits him.’ At a later interview Cook brought the subject up again and at that point Harrelson became very serious, Cook quoted Harrelson as saying "Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had" and added "November 22, 1963. You remember that!". Most of the time, when Harrelson has been questioned with regard to the assassination he has emphatically denied it, but Cook showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was "amazed at the similarities." Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance.
From John Geraghty’s seminar:
QUOTE
A reporter for the Dallas morning news by the name of Chuck Cook interviewed Harrelson on the judge Wood case and subsequently asked him about his claims of murdering the President, Cook said that Harrelson ‘got this sly little grin on his face, Harrelson is very intelligent and has a way of not answering when it suits him’(6). At a later interview Cook brought the subject up again and at that point Harrelson became very serious, Cook quoted Harrelson as saying “Listen, if and when I get out of here (prison) and feel free to talk, I will have something that will be the biggest story you ever had” and added “November 22, 1963. You remember that!”. Cooks claims seem to be sensational as every other time Harrelson has been questioned with regard to the assassination he has emphatically denied it. Cook later showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was “amazed at the similarities”. Cook later revealed that Harrelson's jail conversations were indeed being monitored although this is the norm in some prisons including the maximum penitentiary in Colorado in which he is currently incarcerated(7).
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2371
That picture is very clear to me. Honesty is such a lonely word on this forum.
I guess you are all, Jim Garrison, Gerald posner, McAdams and other disinformation supporters.
I don't think you have put a dent in the fact that Richard Nixon was directly involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Incredible, how hard you try however, I am absolutely astounded by the effort.
I guess you are all politically motivated here, because you never discuss the Kennedy assassination, unless you wish to protect scoundrels like Richard Nixon.
This is directly from the article, and I get the feeling that it has upset your political views, is that what this is all about?
"It is not really certain whether Harrelson was successful in his mission to kill the President. He could have fired the shot that missed. What is absolutely certain is that he was with Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis at the scene of the crime, that Nixon was evidently an off-site operative and 'Watergate' is merely an act that includes many crimes, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The battle between Nixon loyalists and Nixon targets is still a huge factor in American politics. When Bill Clinton was elected President, Nixon loyalists adopted the mantra "if the press can impeach Nixon, the press can impeach Clinton" and they stuck to it, to provoke the greatest constitutional crisis since Watergate. Nobody blamed the media because former Nixon spies like Lucianne Goldberg are no longer called spies, they are called "the media", and the phony distinction between the "Liberal" media and the "Conservative" media has become a license to distort the truth without the need to act like a treacherous spy. Why pretend to be a journalist to spy on your opponent, when you can call yourself a "Conservative journalist" and lie about your opponent with impunity?
In actual fact the media should not be "Liberal" or "Conservative", it should be reliable, but when Richard Nixon was forced to resign, he blamed the liberal media for his predicament and he spent the rest of his life cultivating the power to do the same to his enemies.
The climax of the plot to impeach President Clinton was April 1, 1998, when Dick Morris foamed around the mouth on national television and vehemently condemned what he called, the "Nixonian creep that we have seen in the Clinton White House." Dick Morris called himself a journalist, but in fact, he was acting like Lucianne Goldberg who had pretended to be a journalist in the 1970's, because she was trying to gain political advantage for Richard Nixon.
Moreover, the very same money that was responsible for backing Richard Nixon in the 1970's was responsible for attacking Bill Clinton, and a memo dated May 12, 1971, from Charles Colson to H. R. Haldeman, identified the long-standing, finanial, Scaife/Nixon relationship. According to the memo: "...Dick Scaife is feeling very down on the administration at the moment. Inasmuch as Scaife has been one of our biggest financial backers, I think we need to consider perhaps some unusual steps to rebuild relationships."
Thankfully, Richard Nixon's financial backers did not make him President of the United States, in 1960, because he would have probably invaded Cuba and triggered a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, in the process. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what Richard Nixon advised Kennedy to do. In his own words, speaking to Kennedy about Cuba, Richard Nixon said, "I would find a proper legal cover and I would go in. There are several justifications that could be used, like protecting American citizens living in Cuba and defending our base at Guatanamo. I believe that the most important thing at this point is that we do whatever is necessary to get Castro and communism out of Cuba." Fortunately, John F. Kennedy was the President of the United States, in 1960.
Unfortunately for the President however, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were reading from the same page, regarding the obsession to prosecute the Vietnam war, and that became absolutely clear when Richard Nixon did not challenge Johnson's political candidacy in 1964. In other words, while Lyndon Johnson publicly promised to maintain the Kennedy agenda, he had privately reached a secret deal which Nixon, and that was the real, credibility gap of the Johnson White House. Needless to say, Nixon did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964 because his choices were determined by the "politics" of the Kennedy assassination. Everybody who had a hand in the plot to assassinate Kennedy had his role defined for him, Richard Nixon did not have unilateral authority over a diverse, group efort. If that were the case, he would have opposed Lyndon Johnson's political candidacy in 1964, but he did not."
By the way Ron, everybody that i have shown those posted pictures, thinks that the picture of the "HOBO" LOL is in fact Harrelson.
The features of a person do not change despite the aging process, but I have had a good laugh with all the propaganda you are posting, to misinform.
Anyways, who should be happy about the fact that one of the plotters is in a federal prison.
Anyways, I missed the point of all that whining Ron, are you trying to say that both MC Tracy and Mat Wilson are wrong about the fact that Richard Nixon is lying about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
I guess you are all, Jim Garrison, Gerald posner, McAdams and other disinformation supporters.
I don't think you have put a dent in the fact that Richard Nixon was directly involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Incredible, how hard you try however, I am absolutely astounded by the effort.
I guess you are all politically motivated here, because you never discuss the Kennedy assassination, unless you wish to protect scoundrels like Richard Nixon.
This is directly from the article, and I get the feeling that it has upset your political views, is that what this is all about?
"It is not really certain whether Harrelson was successful in his mission to kill the President. He could have fired the shot that missed. What is absolutely certain is that he was with Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis at the scene of the crime, that Nixon was evidently an off-site operative and 'Watergate' is merely an act that includes many crimes, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The battle between Nixon loyalists and Nixon targets is still a huge factor in American politics. When Bill Clinton was elected President, Nixon loyalists adopted the mantra "if the press can impeach Nixon, the press can impeach Clinton" and they stuck to it, to provoke the greatest constitutional crisis since Watergate. Nobody blamed the media because former Nixon spies like Lucianne Goldberg are no longer called spies, they are called "the media", and the phony distinction between the "Liberal" media and the "Conservative" media has become a license to distort the truth without the need to act like a treacherous spy. Why pretend to be a journalist to spy on your opponent, when you can call yourself a "Conservative journalist" and lie about your opponent with impunity?
In actual fact the media should not be "Liberal" or "Conservative", it should be reliable, but when Richard Nixon was forced to resign, he blamed the liberal media for his predicament and he spent the rest of his life cultivating the power to do the same to his enemies.
The climax of the plot to impeach President Clinton was April 1, 1998, when Dick Morris foamed around the mouth on national television and vehemently condemned what he called, the "Nixonian creep that we have seen in the Clinton White House." Dick Morris called himself a journalist, but in fact, he was acting like Lucianne Goldberg who had pretended to be a journalist in the 1970's, because she was trying to gain political advantage for Richard Nixon.
Moreover, the very same money that was responsible for backing Richard Nixon in the 1970's was responsible for attacking Bill Clinton, and a memo dated May 12, 1971, from Charles Colson to H. R. Haldeman, identified the long-standing, finanial, Scaife/Nixon relationship. According to the memo: "...Dick Scaife is feeling very down on the administration at the moment. Inasmuch as Scaife has been one of our biggest financial backers, I think we need to consider perhaps some unusual steps to rebuild relationships."
Thankfully, Richard Nixon's financial backers did not make him President of the United States, in 1960, because he would have probably invaded Cuba and triggered a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, in the process. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what Richard Nixon advised Kennedy to do. In his own words, speaking to Kennedy about Cuba, Richard Nixon said, "I would find a proper legal cover and I would go in. There are several justifications that could be used, like protecting American citizens living in Cuba and defending our base at Guatanamo. I believe that the most important thing at this point is that we do whatever is necessary to get Castro and communism out of Cuba." Fortunately, John F. Kennedy was the President of the United States, in 1960.
Unfortunately for the President however, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were reading from the same page, regarding the obsession to prosecute the Vietnam war, and that became absolutely clear when Richard Nixon did not challenge Johnson's political candidacy in 1964. In other words, while Lyndon Johnson publicly promised to maintain the Kennedy agenda, he had privately reached a secret deal which Nixon, and that was the real, credibility gap of the Johnson White House. Needless to say, Nixon did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964 because his choices were determined by the "politics" of the Kennedy assassination. Everybody who had a hand in the plot to assassinate Kennedy had his role defined for him, Richard Nixon did not have unilateral authority over a diverse, group efort. If that were the case, he would have opposed Lyndon Johnson's political candidacy in 1964, but he did not."
By the way Ron, everybody that i have shown those posted pictures, thinks that the picture of the "HOBO" LOL is in fact Harrelson.
The features of a person do not change despite the aging process, but I have had a good laugh with all the propaganda you are posting, to misinform.
Anyways, who should be happy about the fact that one of the plotters is in a federal prison.
Anyways, I missed the point of all that whining Ron, are you trying to say that both MC Tracy and Mat Wilson are wrong about the fact that Richard Nixon is lying about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
Lynee,
What's your hard on for this Mat Wilson guy? You seem to think every thing he writes is the "Holy Grail". To me it all looks like idle unsubstantiated speculation. The supposedly damming photo of Tricky Dick was nowhere to be seen nor were there any footnotes. You may take everything he says as the "Wilson given truth" but if you want to be taken seriously on this forum you should cite researchers who actually have research to back their claims.
The way you constantly plug his work makes me wonder if you have an ulterior motive. Are you his publisher, press agent, wife, daughter or girl friend? Or are you just an obsessed fan. Or are you him using an assumed identity?
Just because someone doesn't Wilson or you seriously it does not mean that he or she wants to protect Nixon or is a Warrenist. It just means they don't like hokum.
What's your hard on for this Mat Wilson guy? You seem to think every thing he writes is the "Holy Grail". To me it all looks like idle unsubstantiated speculation. The supposedly damming photo of Tricky Dick was nowhere to be seen nor were there any footnotes. You may take everything he says as the "Wilson given truth" but if you want to be taken seriously on this forum you should cite researchers who actually have research to back their claims.
The way you constantly plug his work makes me wonder if you have an ulterior motive. Are you his publisher, press agent, wife, daughter or girl friend? Or are you just an obsessed fan. Or are you him using an assumed identity?
Just because someone doesn't Wilson or you seriously it does not mean that he or she wants to protect Nixon or is a Warrenist. It just means they don't like hokum.
What are you talking about, Ron posted the website with the picture.
Are you just a Nixon fan who is trying to protect the image of a known criminal?
Click to view attachment
Are you just a Nixon fan who is trying to protect the image of a known criminal?
Click to view attachment
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Nov 14 2005, 03:49 AM)
Lynee,
What's your hard on for this Mat Wilson guy? You seem to think every thing he writes is the "Holy Grail". To me it all looks like idle unsubstantiated speculation. The supposedly damming photo of Tricky Dick was nowhere to be seen nor were there any footnotes. You may take everything he says as the "Wilson given truth" but if you want to be taken seriously on this forum you should cite researchers who actually have research to back their claims.
The way you constantly plug his work makes me wonder if you have an ulterior motive. Are you his publisher, press agent, wife, daughter or girl friend? Or are you just an obsessed fan. Or are you him using an assumed identity?
What's your hard on for this Mat Wilson guy? You seem to think every thing he writes is the "Holy Grail". To me it all looks like idle unsubstantiated speculation. The supposedly damming photo of Tricky Dick was nowhere to be seen nor were there any footnotes. You may take everything he says as the "Wilson given truth" but if you want to be taken seriously on this forum you should cite researchers who actually have research to back their claims.
The way you constantly plug his work makes me wonder if you have an ulterior motive. Are you his publisher, press agent, wife, daughter or girl friend? Or are you just an obsessed fan. Or are you him using an assumed identity?
Like I said in another thread...
A fiver says these linked web sites will be selling something soon... Book, Video, Etc. Something for sale... It is the most plausible explanation for seemingly irrational spamming.
QUOTE (Frank Agbat @ Nov 14 2005, 03:53 AM)
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Nov 14 2005, 03:49 AM)
Lynee,
What's your hard on for this Mat Wilson guy? You seem to think every thing he writes is the "Holy Grail". To me it all looks like idle unsubstantiated speculation. The supposedly damming photo of Tricky Dick was nowhere to be seen nor were there any footnotes. You may take everything he says as the "Wilson given truth" but if you want to be taken seriously on this forum you should cite researchers who actually have research to back their claims.
The way you constantly plug his work makes me wonder if you have an ulterior motive. Are you his publisher, press agent, wife, daughter or girl friend? Or are you just an obsessed fan. Or are you him using an assumed identity?
Like I said in another thread...
A fiver says these linked web sites will be selling something soon... Book, Video, Etc. Something for sale... It is the most plausible explanation for seemingly irrational spamming.
And like I said, Nixon was propelled to power by destroying an innocent man -Alger Hiss.
Why don't you people mention his evident involvement in the Kennedy assassination, if you are here to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 02:58 AM)
Why don't you people mention his evident involvement in the Kennedy assassination
Because Nixon as a suspect has been discussed here many times. Do you think you have something new?
Why don't you mention the apparent plagiarism in that "great read" you found, since I went to the trouble of pointing it out?
Lynne, please stop embarrassing yourself by calling us all Nixon fans. A few months back there were a number of threads about the ties between Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination. Please use the search feature and find these threads and read them. You may learn a thing or two.
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Nov 14 2005, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 02:58 AM)
Why don't you people mention his evident involvement in the Kennedy assassination
Because Nixon as a suspect has been discussed here many times. Do you think you have something new?
Why don't you mention the apparent plagiarism in that "great read" you found, since I went to the trouble of pointing it out?
I didn't notice any plagiarism, Nixon is just a suspect?
He sounds more like a serial assassin to me.
If you know everything, why don't you just tell us who murdered President Kennedy and I'll just read and learn?
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 12:53 AM)
What are you talking about, Ron posted the website with the picture.
Are you just a Nixon fan who is trying to protect the image of a known criminal?
Are you just a Nixon fan who is trying to protect the image of a known criminal?
Your right Ron did post the link to an article with the photo in a post in which he trashed your source. But as I said neither you nor Wilson did. That your guy mixes plagiarism with unsupported speculation puts him an even worse light.
What this photo proves is beyond me, it's possible that the photo editor added the part about Nixon having heard about the assassination during the flight. Also in neither of the quotes from the site Ron gave the link to does Nixon say he FIRST heard about the assassination from these people when he was in the cab.
"In a 1964 Reader's Digest article, Nixon recalled hailing a cab after his Dallas-New York flight: 'We were waiting for a light to change when a man ran over from the street corner and said that the President had just been shot in Dallas.' In November of 1973, however, Nixon said in Esquire that his cabbie 'missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway...a woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas."
Did Nixon lie about when he first heard about it? Could be, but that has yet to be proven. If he did does it prove anything? No just that he was a lying SOB, they didn't call him Tricky Dick for nothing. Was he a crimminal, of course. Did he have anything to do with the assassination? Could be but is unlikely that your hero will prove anything.
You also failed to reply to the rest of my thread, why do you constantly plug that dope Wilson?
You probably missed this from my last reply because I added it in an edit.
QUOTE
Just because someone doesn't take Wilson or you seriously it does not mean that he or she wants to protect Nixon or is a Warrenist. It just means they don't like hokum.
I noticed that you think Ron is a Nixon fan too. LOL Take a look at our other posts to see if you really think that's true.
You seem to have alienated just about everyone on this forum. You should ask yourself is the problem with ALL of us or is it with you? Where did you post before you showed up here? Did you get booted from there? That might soon be your fate here.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Nov 14 2005, 04:20 AM)
Lynne, please stop embarrassing yourself by calling us all Nixon fans. A few months back there were a number of threads about the ties between Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination. Please use the search feature and find these threads and read them. You may learn a thing or two.
I did that search and I found this article, the very same one I posted today. and it is listed under my thread, Watergate and the kennedy assassination.
But when I initially posted that, the material on the website was very, very different, it has evidently been updated.
Websites are evidently updated all the time, and the material that you will find there today, may not be the same tomorrow.
At any rate, I did not find anything that anybody else has posted, can you post a link I can look into?
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 03:32 AM)
Websites are evidently updated all the time, and the material that you will find there today, may not be the same tomorrow.
I find this hard to believe. Where did you get that idea?
The next thing you know you'll be telling us about "dead links" out there. But we already know about them: They're the roadkill of the information superhighway.
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 13 2005, 08:27 PM)
Read this again, I think his wife is in a better position to judge than you are:
"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news... showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "
"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news... showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "
She said she was 'amazed at the similarities' that doesn't mean she thought it was him. It could even be understood to mean the opposite. If you showed my wife pictures of me taken years before she would probably say 'That's him' if you showed her pictures of someone else who looked a lot like me she would probably say something like "I'm amazed at the similarities."
It would also be valuable to know if she knew him in 1963. If you, I'm assuming you really are Wilson or his partner, show the photo to a recognized and trained forensic photographic analysis and he or she says they're the same person I might agree you are on to something rather than that you are on something.
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 01:23 AM)
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Nov 14 2005, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 02:58 AM)
Why don't you people mention his evident involvement in the Kennedy assassination
Because Nixon as a suspect has been discussed here many times. Do you think you have something new?
Why don't you mention the apparent plagiarism in that "great read" you found, since I went to the trouble of pointing it out?
I didn't notice any plagiarism,
I guess I over estimated your intellectual abilities he/you copped the part about Nixon lying and the Halderman/Erlichman quote from the other article. Quoted the exact same passage from the book, was that just a coincidence?
QUOTE
Nixon is just a suspect?
He sounds more like a serial assassin to me.
He sounds more like a serial assassin to me.
More damning evidence of that has been posted on this Forum than you have come up with but I still haven't seen anything conclusive.
QUOTE
If you know everything, why don't you just tell us who murdered President Kennedy and I'll just read and learn?
You're the one who seems to think they are all knowing
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 04:32 AM)
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Nov 14 2005, 04:20 AM)
Lynne, please stop embarrassing yourself by calling us all Nixon fans. A few months back there were a number of threads about the ties between Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination. Please use the search feature and find these threads and read them. You may learn a thing or two.
I did that search and I found this article, the very same one I posted today. and it is listed under my thread, Watergate and the kennedy assassination.
But when I initially posted that, the material on the website was very, very different, it has evidently been updated.
Websites are evidently updated all the time, and the material that you will find there today, may not be the same tomorrow.
At any rate, I did not find anything that anybody else has posted, can you post a link I can look into?
I suspect you searched the web at the top of this screen. If you scroll down to the bottom of this screen, you should see a search topic section. This applies to the Education Forum only. Once you search a topic, you'll be able to search by any keywords you like. You're even able to search by the person posting. So, if, for instance, you want to search what everyone is saying about you, you can type in your name and see what comes up.
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 13 2005, 11:26 PM)
Unfortunately for the President however, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were reading from the same page, regarding the obsession to prosecute the Vietnam war, and that became absolutely clear when Richard Nixon did not challenge Johnson's political candidacy in 1964. In other words, while Lyndon Johnson publicly promised to maintain the Kennedy agenda, he had privately reached a secret deal which Nixon, and that was the real, credibility gap of the Johnson White House. Needless to say, Nixon did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964 because his choices were determined by the "politics" of the Kennedy assassination. Everybody who had a hand in the plot to assassinate Kennedy had his role defined for him, Richard Nixon did not have unilateral authority over a diverse, group efort. If that were the case, he would have opposed Lyndon Johnson's political candidacy in 1964, but he did not."
Nixon didn't run in '64 because he knew he would loose. The loss of the California governor's race was especially embarassing for him and he swore to never run for office again. He hadn't won and election onhis own since 1950 and lost two in a row, people considered him sore looser and LBJ was very popular. I don't even know if he could have gotten the nomination.
Was Nixon "in on it"? Was LBJ? Did they make a deal? Again could be but you haven't come up with anything new or compelling.
I think you really are Wilson your brain operates on the same faulty logic.
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Nov 14 2005, 01:40 AM)
The next thing you know you'll be telling us about "dead links" out there. But we already know about them: They're the roadkill of the information superhighway.
Try right clicking the link and chose the "cached snapshot of page" option, if you're lucky you'll get a copy of the page "captured" by Google. You might need the Google toolbar for this to work.
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Nov 14 2005, 05:25 AM)
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 13 2005, 11:26 PM)
Unfortunately for the President however, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were reading from the same page, regarding the obsession to prosecute the Vietnam war, and that became absolutely clear when Richard Nixon did not challenge Johnson's political candidacy in 1964. In other words, while Lyndon Johnson publicly promised to maintain the Kennedy agenda, he had privately reached a secret deal which Nixon, and that was the real, credibility gap of the Johnson White House. Needless to say, Nixon did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964 because his choices were determined by the "politics" of the Kennedy assassination. Everybody who had a hand in the plot to assassinate Kennedy had his role defined for him, Richard Nixon did not have unilateral authority over a diverse, group efort. If that were the case, he would have opposed Lyndon Johnson's political candidacy in 1964, but he did not."
Nixon didn't run in '64 because he knew he would loose. The loss of the California governor's race was especially embarassing for him and he swore to never run for office again. He hadn't won and election onhis own since 1950 and lost two in a row, people considered him sore looser and LBJ was very popular. I don't even know if he could have gotten the nomination.
Was Nixon "in on it"? Was LBJ? Did they make a deal? Again could be but you haven't come up with anything new or compelling.
I think you really are Wilson your brain operates on the same faulty logic.
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Nov 14 2005, 01:40 AM)
The next thing you know you'll be telling us about "dead links" out there. But we already know about them: They're the roadkill of the information superhighway.
Try right clicking the link and chose the "cached snapshot of page" option, if you're lucky you'll get a copy of the page "captured" by Google. You might need the Google toolbar for this to work.
I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider.
Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.
Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?
I'm not an apologist for Nixon by ANY means. I think Nixon was guilty as hell of MANY things. I think Nixon MAY have been involved in the JFK assassination. But Lynne...do you have any clue as to WHY I'm not out proclaiming Nixon did it?
Because there is NO PROOF.
Now, whether that's because Nixon is innocent, or whether it's because he covered his tracks well, I can't say. I've look at the evidence that's available, and all that's out there are bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence, and a lot of speculation an innuendo.
Speculation and innuendo do NOT constitute proof. And while I believe that, of all the politicians in 1963 who had a motive Nixon heads the list of suspects, what I believe doesn't prove diddly squat.
Lynne, I think you really need to spend a couple of days reading the archived threads on the forum, so you might better understand what has already been discussed, and what evidence there is, and who here falls on what side of the discussion. I think you've misjudged Ron Ecker quite badly...and while Ron and I seemingly disagree about as often as we agree, I respect Ron because he DOES HIS RESEARCH. And it's quite apparent by the tone and the content of your posts, Lynne, that they lack both respect and research.
Because there is NO PROOF.
Now, whether that's because Nixon is innocent, or whether it's because he covered his tracks well, I can't say. I've look at the evidence that's available, and all that's out there are bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence, and a lot of speculation an innuendo.
Speculation and innuendo do NOT constitute proof. And while I believe that, of all the politicians in 1963 who had a motive Nixon heads the list of suspects, what I believe doesn't prove diddly squat.
Lynne, I think you really need to spend a couple of days reading the archived threads on the forum, so you might better understand what has already been discussed, and what evidence there is, and who here falls on what side of the discussion. I think you've misjudged Ron Ecker quite badly...and while Ron and I seemingly disagree about as often as we agree, I respect Ron because he DOES HIS RESEARCH. And it's quite apparent by the tone and the content of your posts, Lynne, that they lack both respect and research.
Mark wrote:
And while I believe that, of all the politicians in 1963 who had a motive Nixon heads the list of suspects, what I believe doesn't prove diddly squat.
I agree with most of what Mark posted except the sentence above.
The primary American political beneficiary of the assassination was, of course, LBJ. But like Mark wrote about Nixon, the fact that LBJ had a motive is insufficient evidence to indict him. Moreover, what motive did Nixon have?
As we have covered before, the Republicans had no political reason to want JFK dead in 1964. In 1963, JFK was far from a "shoo-in". Any political analyst worth his salt would have been able to precict that LBJ would receive a "sympathy vote" from the murder of his predecessor. LBJ then could have run as an incumbent in 1968 and it would not have been until 1972 that the Republicans could have run a candidate against a non-incumbent. On the other hand, if JFK had lived and had he won re-election in 1964, the Republicans would have been able to run against a non-incumbent in 1968. Had LBJ turned out to be a popular president, it would have been very difficult for the GOP to oust him in 1968.
P.S. I am neither a JFK nor a Nixon apologist. I think both were guilty of "many things", as Mark puts it, and both made political mistakes, some egregious. On the other hand, both did accomplish things that are worthy of respect. The same thing can be said of LBJ. Although Ford and Carter were very probably cleaner than JFK, RNM and LBJ, I have difficulty remembering anything significant accomplished by Ford or Carter.
And while I believe that, of all the politicians in 1963 who had a motive Nixon heads the list of suspects, what I believe doesn't prove diddly squat.
I agree with most of what Mark posted except the sentence above.
The primary American political beneficiary of the assassination was, of course, LBJ. But like Mark wrote about Nixon, the fact that LBJ had a motive is insufficient evidence to indict him. Moreover, what motive did Nixon have?
As we have covered before, the Republicans had no political reason to want JFK dead in 1964. In 1963, JFK was far from a "shoo-in". Any political analyst worth his salt would have been able to precict that LBJ would receive a "sympathy vote" from the murder of his predecessor. LBJ then could have run as an incumbent in 1968 and it would not have been until 1972 that the Republicans could have run a candidate against a non-incumbent. On the other hand, if JFK had lived and had he won re-election in 1964, the Republicans would have been able to run against a non-incumbent in 1968. Had LBJ turned out to be a popular president, it would have been very difficult for the GOP to oust him in 1968.
P.S. I am neither a JFK nor a Nixon apologist. I think both were guilty of "many things", as Mark puts it, and both made political mistakes, some egregious. On the other hand, both did accomplish things that are worthy of respect. The same thing can be said of LBJ. Although Ford and Carter were very probably cleaner than JFK, RNM and LBJ, I have difficulty remembering anything significant accomplished by Ford or Carter.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Nov 14 2005, 05:30 AM)
I have difficulty remembering anything significant accomplished by Ford or Carter.
WIN buttons. (For those not old enough to remember them, don't ask. It's not worth it.)
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Nov 14 2005, 08:00 AM)
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Nov 14 2005, 05:30 AM)
I have difficulty remembering anything significant accomplished by Ford or Carter.
WIN buttons. (For those not old enough to remember them, don't ask. It's not worth it.)
Whip
Inflation
Now
Do I win a prize?
Pat, you must first advise whether when you when you wrote "Do I win a prize" the pun was intentional or not. Somehow I suspect it was!
You do belong to the group of 5% of Americans who can remember what "WIN" meant.
About the only thing I remember about Carter was his fight with a rabbit and Billie Beer. But in fairness to the man I think he has devoted his life to public service. I could be wrong but I think President Ford still spends most of his time on the golf course.
You do belong to the group of 5% of Americans who can remember what "WIN" meant.
About the only thing I remember about Carter was his fight with a rabbit and Billie Beer. But in fairness to the man I think he has devoted his life to public service. I could be wrong but I think President Ford still spends most of his time on the golf course.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Nov 14 2005, 07:08 AM)
Whip
Inflation
Now
Do I win a prize?
Inflation
Now
Do I win a prize?
Yes. Jimmy Carter is going to build you a house.
See, I told you how publicly-minded Carter is.
If he does not already have one, Pat deserves a house!
If he does not already have one, Pat deserves a house!
Here you go, Tim. As requested.
Ford and Carter in action. Don't forget that Carter reported seeing a UFO as well. I'm sure after the rabbit incident, some felt that Carter himself belonged in an X File.
James
Ford and Carter in action. Don't forget that Carter reported seeing a UFO as well. I'm sure after the rabbit incident, some felt that Carter himself belonged in an X File.
James
Great work, James.
Ford's contributions to American history: the Warren Commission Report and his pardoning of Nixon.
Ford's contributions to American history: the Warren Commission Report and his pardoning of Nixon.
[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:00 AM' post='45199']
I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider.
Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.
Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?
[/quote]
John:
Just how long are you going to allow this nitnit to literally ruin this forum? SHe has now managed to accuse everyone here of being everything from a Nixon supporter to trying to sabotage the investigation of the assassination.
This used to be a serious forum but the last few days it's been a joke: a sad joke.
And this is not just my opinion, several people from the forum were privately in touch last evening about this.
Dawn
[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 14 2005, 08:16 AM' post='45215']
You do belong to the group of 5% of Americans who can remember what "WIN" meant.
Tim: Surely you jest? Who could FORGET "Whip Inflation Now"?
Don't you remember how succesful all those pins were against inflation?
Ford was so innovative; a genius
Dawn
I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider.
Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.
Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?
[/quote]
John:
Just how long are you going to allow this nitnit to literally ruin this forum? SHe has now managed to accuse everyone here of being everything from a Nixon supporter to trying to sabotage the investigation of the assassination.
This used to be a serious forum but the last few days it's been a joke: a sad joke.
And this is not just my opinion, several people from the forum were privately in touch last evening about this.
Dawn
[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 14 2005, 08:16 AM' post='45215']
You do belong to the group of 5% of Americans who can remember what "WIN" meant.
Tim: Surely you jest? Who could FORGET "Whip Inflation Now"?
Don't you remember how succesful all those pins were against inflation?
Ford was so innovative; a genius
Dawn
Dawn, yes, indeed, Ford did stop inflation through those pins, until he was defeated by Carter!
Don't you wonder whose idea those pins were?
Fortd was a much better athlete than he was portrayed but I suspect the satires of Chevy Chase helped cost him the presidency. I'm sure you remember Chase on SNL.
Whatever happened to Chase? Heard a rumour he retired to a Maryland suburb of DC.
Don't you wonder whose idea those pins were?
Fortd was a much better athlete than he was portrayed but I suspect the satires of Chevy Chase helped cost him the presidency. I'm sure you remember Chase on SNL.
Whatever happened to Chase? Heard a rumour he retired to a Maryland suburb of DC.
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 13 2005, 09:14 PM)
I didn't know Nixon was so heavily involved in the kennedy assassination. I have heard plenty of rumors, but this is the first comprehensive account I have read, it's incredible.
Check this out:
Nixon falsely claimed that the first he heard of Kennedy's death was during a taxi ride in New York City, however, a UPI photo reveals the truth. The photo shows a "shocked Richard Nixon" [HIS Dealy Plaza, 'hobo' act] having already learned of Kennedy's assassination upon his arrival at New York's Idlewild Airport --BEFORE his alleged taxi ride. Perhaps, Richard Nixon does not want us to know who picked him up at the airport, who he talked to or what he said, but he doesn't have to lie to us.
Many researchers have linked Richard Nixon to the assassination of John F. Kennedy because his outright lies, the secrecy and his selective amnesia is very telling. For example, as H.R. Haldeman indicates in his book, "The Ends of Power", Watergate was ultimately about a shocking scandal that preceded a simple burglary, and as Haldeman indicates:
In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans [Watergate Burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.' After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with the Watergate Burglary?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will know what I mean,' and dropped the subject.
It is now quite clear and obvious that the Watergate burglars were tied to the murder of John F. Kennedy, and Haldeman does not mince words when he says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."
Check this out:
Nixon falsely claimed that the first he heard of Kennedy's death was during a taxi ride in New York City, however, a UPI photo reveals the truth. The photo shows a "shocked Richard Nixon" [HIS Dealy Plaza, 'hobo' act] having already learned of Kennedy's assassination upon his arrival at New York's Idlewild Airport --BEFORE his alleged taxi ride. Perhaps, Richard Nixon does not want us to know who picked him up at the airport, who he talked to or what he said, but he doesn't have to lie to us.
Many researchers have linked Richard Nixon to the assassination of John F. Kennedy because his outright lies, the secrecy and his selective amnesia is very telling. For example, as H.R. Haldeman indicates in his book, "The Ends of Power", Watergate was ultimately about a shocking scandal that preceded a simple burglary, and as Haldeman indicates:
In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans [Watergate Burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.' After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with the Watergate Burglary?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will know what I mean,' and dropped the subject.
It is now quite clear and obvious that the Watergate burglars were tied to the murder of John F. Kennedy, and Haldeman does not mince words when he says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."
Lynne, I would advise you to use the JFK Index of the Forum. For example, these issues have already been discussed here:
Nixon, Watergate and the JFK Assassination
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4558
Operation Sandwedge: Jack Kennedy and George Wallace
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4487
I am convinced that Richard Nixon had nothing at all to do with the assassination of JFK. In fact, we can say with some confidence that no senior figures in the Republican Party had anything to do with the assassination. As William Buckley said to Barry Goldwater after the assassination, it is not worth you standing, the Democrats will win it by a landslide. To understand the assassination you need to look at those politicians (and business interests) surrounding Lyndon Johnson.
I am not saying that Nixon was incapable of encouraging his friends to carry out assassinations. For example, I believe his friends were responsible for the attempt to kill George Wallace. However, it is about timing and not honesty. Nixon rivals LBJ as being the most corrupt president in American history.
Nixon did attempt to use the information he had about the CIA and FBI in the involvement and cover-up of the assassination. This information came from William Sullivan, the man who carried out the FBI/CIA joint investigation of the assassination with James Jesus Angleton. Nixon used this information to blackmail Richard Helms. He was too scared of trying to blackmail Hoover and maybe he did use his friends to help him die. It was definitely very convenient for Nixon and his choice of the man to replace Hoover is very significant. Remember, it was Grey who got the contents of E. Howard Hunt's safe.
And when Nixon selected Grey over Mark Felt, he upset (I almost used a vulgarism) Felt, and look where that got Nixon!
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Nov 14 2005, 10:28 AM' post='45231']
[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:00 AM' post='45199']
I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider.
Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.
Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?
[/quote]
John:
Just how long are you going to allow this nitnit to literally ruin this forum? SHe has now managed to accuse everyone here of being everything from a Nixon supporter to trying to sabotage the investigation of the assassination.
This used to be a serious forum but the last few days it's been a joke: a sad joke.
And this is not just my opinion, several people from the forum were privately in touch last evening about this.
Dawn
[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 14 2005, 08:16 AM' post='45215']
You do belong to the group of 5% of Americans who can remember what "WIN" meant.
Tim: Surely you jest? Who could FORGET "Whip Inflation Now"?
Don't you remember how succesful all those pins were against inflation?
Ford was so innovative; a genius
Dawn
[/quote]
This is just plain silliness. By the way Dawn, if you study that UPI photograph of Richard Nixon, you will find that he looks just like a hobo.
Do you think that Howard Hunt rubbed off on him?
How long have you been trying to ban me from this message board and why?
[quote name='Len Colby' post='45189' date='Nov 14 2005, 04:42 AM']
[quote name='Lynne Foster' post='45152' date='Nov 13 2005, 08:27 PM']Read this again, I think his wife is in a better position to judge than you are:
"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news... showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "[/quote]
She said she was 'amazed at the similarities' that doesn't mean she thought it was him. It could even be understood to mean the opposite. If you showed my wife pictures of me taken years before she would probably say 'That's him' if you showed her pictures of someone else who looked a lot like me she would probably say something like "I'm amazed at the similarities."
It would also be valuable to know if she knew him in 1963. If you, I'm assuming you really are Wilson or his partner, show the photo to a recognized and trained forensic photographic analysis and he or she says they're the same person I might agree you are on to something rather than that you are on something.
[/quote]
LEN, GIVE IT UP WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT AGREE.
[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:00 AM' post='45199']
I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider.
Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.
Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?
[/quote]
John:
Just how long are you going to allow this nitnit to literally ruin this forum? SHe has now managed to accuse everyone here of being everything from a Nixon supporter to trying to sabotage the investigation of the assassination.
This used to be a serious forum but the last few days it's been a joke: a sad joke.
And this is not just my opinion, several people from the forum were privately in touch last evening about this.
Dawn
[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 14 2005, 08:16 AM' post='45215']
You do belong to the group of 5% of Americans who can remember what "WIN" meant.
Tim: Surely you jest? Who could FORGET "Whip Inflation Now"?
Don't you remember how succesful all those pins were against inflation?
Ford was so innovative; a genius
Dawn
[/quote]
This is just plain silliness. By the way Dawn, if you study that UPI photograph of Richard Nixon, you will find that he looks just like a hobo.
Do you think that Howard Hunt rubbed off on him?
How long have you been trying to ban me from this message board and why?
[quote name='Len Colby' post='45189' date='Nov 14 2005, 04:42 AM']
[quote name='Lynne Foster' post='45152' date='Nov 13 2005, 08:27 PM']Read this again, I think his wife is in a better position to judge than you are:
"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news... showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "[/quote]
She said she was 'amazed at the similarities' that doesn't mean she thought it was him. It could even be understood to mean the opposite. If you showed my wife pictures of me taken years before she would probably say 'That's him' if you showed her pictures of someone else who looked a lot like me she would probably say something like "I'm amazed at the similarities."
It would also be valuable to know if she knew him in 1963. If you, I'm assuming you really are Wilson or his partner, show the photo to a recognized and trained forensic photographic analysis and he or she says they're the same person I might agree you are on to something rather than that you are on something.
[/quote]
LEN, GIVE IT UP WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT AGREE.
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 11:34 AM)
I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider.
Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.
Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?
Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.
Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?
I think you're Wilson because you constantly plug his meritless works and like him you state that things are beyond doubt based on the shakiest of evidence.
I'm am not a 'Nixon insider', that distinction belongs to Tim [LOL] you use that innuendo against all of us. I did study American history. Nixon said the press wouldn't have him "to kick around any more" after losing the governor's race indicating his withdrawal from politics. He never show any interest in running for president again until the late 60's. The chances of any Republican winning in '64 after the assassination were very slim and even lower for Nixon. Only twice had a defeated candidate later been elected president Jefferson in 1800 and Cleveland in 1892. These were special cases in 1796 Jefferson's 2nd place made him VP Cleveland was elected in 1884 and won the popular vote in 1888 and Harrison [Cleveland's opponent in 88 and 92 supported a very unpopular tariff increase. Incumbents very rarely lost presidential elections before 1976 and most examples were special cases like Cleveland in 1888, Harrison in 1892 and Hoover in 1932 [he was blamed for causing of at least not ending the Depression]
You were the one claiming to know about a secret LBJ/Nixon pact maybe you are the insider
QUOTE
This is just plain silliness. By the way Dawn, if you study that UPI photograph of Richard Nixon, you will find that he looks just like a hobo.
Do you think that Howard Hunt rubbed off on him?
Do you think that Howard Hunt rubbed off on him?
LOL Nixon always looked like a hobo!! Your logic gets fuzzier by the minute. I agree it is silly.
QUOTE
How long have you been trying to ban me from this message board and why?
Could it be because you spam this forum with garbage and insult everyone who disagrees with you?
[Dawn did I get that right?]
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Nov 14 2005, 04:42 AM)
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 13 2005, 08:27 PM)
Read this again, I think his wife is in a better position to judge than you are:
She said she was 'amazed at the similarities' that doesn't mean she thought it was him. It could even be understood to mean the opposite. If you showed my wife pictures of me taken years before she would probably say 'That's him' if you showed her pictures of someone else who looked a lot like me she would probably say something like "I'm amazed at the similarities."
It would also be valuable to know if she knew him in 1963. If you, I'm assuming you really are Wilson or his partner, show the photo to a recognized and trained forensic photographic analysis and he or she says they're the same person I might agree you are on to something rather than that you are on something.
QUOTE
"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news... showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "
She said she was 'amazed at the similarities' that doesn't mean she thought it was him. It could even be understood to mean the opposite. If you showed my wife pictures of me taken years before she would probably say 'That's him' if you showed her pictures of someone else who looked a lot like me she would probably say something like "I'm amazed at the similarities."
It would also be valuable to know if she knew him in 1963. If you, I'm assuming you really are Wilson or his partner, show the photo to a recognized and trained forensic photographic analysis and he or she says they're the same person I might agree you are on to something rather than that you are on something.
LEN, GIVE IT UP WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT AGREE.
1] Cop out reply
2] It's not just me, everyone disagrees with you. I think the only thing we agree on is that you're a pain in the ass.
I think Lynee is either
1] Wilson or his partner/press agent
2] A 'troll' who has come here just to piss people off.
3] Who she claims to be but in that case her arrogance out strips her knowledge and wisdom.
In any case I don't think it's worth anyone's while to continue responding to her posts. I doubt I will. Anyone can make one or two dumb posts but Lynee doesn't seem capable of or willing to producing anything else
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Nov 14 2005, 09:15 AM)
And when Nixon selected Grey over Mark Felt, he upset (I almost used a vulgarism) Felt, and look where that got Nixon!
Deep Throat felt he'd been slighted [sorry couldn't resist]
Tim now that we're on the subject of Republican presidents lying about when they first saw/heard about historically critical tragedies, I invite you to reply to the thread concerning Bush's lies about what he saw on 9/11 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5209
Len
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Nov 14 2005, 09:38 AM)
Don't you wonder whose idea those pins were?
Has everyone forgotten that Irving Berlin wrote a song "Whip Inflation Now"? I don't know how they forced him to do it, but the song was so bad that the whole world has made a point of forgetting it. I defy anyone to find a mention of it on the Internet. I even searched in vain in a Berlin biography at Amazon.com. The song is a moment in American popular culture totally lost to history - except for my memory of it, I guess. When I'm gone, that'll be it.
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Nov 14 2005, 12:46 PM)
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Nov 14 2005, 09:38 AM)
Don't you wonder whose idea those pins were?
Has everyone forgotten that Irving Berlin wrote a song "Stop Inflation Now"? I don't know how they forced him to do it, but the song was so bad that the whole world has made a point of forgetting it. I defy anyone to find a mention of it on the Internet. I even searched in vain in a Berlin biography at Amazon.com. The song is a moment in American popular culture totally lost to history - except for my memory of it, I guess. When I'm gone, that'll be it.
Many CT types would claim that if it's not on the Net it doesn't exist. Are you sure that's the title?
Len,
I meant to say "Whip Inflation Now" and wrote "Stop Inflation Now" instead. I've edited the post.
Ron
P.S. Though "Stop Inflation Now" would have been a better slogan. SIN buttons!
I meant to say "Whip Inflation Now" and wrote "Stop Inflation Now" instead. I've edited the post.
Ron
P.S. Though "Stop Inflation Now" would have been a better slogan. SIN buttons!
Mat Wilson's article makes a great deal of sense and sheds a great deal of insight into a typical plot that involved members both in and out of government -making it practically impossible to produce a reliable, "official" record, to expose the operation. This memo dated January 12, 1971, from Charles W. Colson to George Ball, is quite interesting:
"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."
I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:
Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you
"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."
I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:
Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 04:29 PM)
Mat Wilson's article makes a great deal of sense and sheds a great deal of insight into a typical plot that involved members both in and out of government -making it practically impossible to produce a reliable, "official" record, to expose the operation. This memo dated January 12, 1971, from Charles W. Colson to George Ball, is quite interesting:
"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."
I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:
Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you
"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."
I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:
Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you
Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA. Probably every person here has read this passage and has analyzed its every word. Tim Carroll created an online seminar last year called "The Bay of Pigs Thing" in which he tracked down the links between Watergate and the Assassination.
I do agree that the memo on Hunt is significant. If you look at the date of Colson's memo, it was several months before Hunt was officially hired by the White House. What were these "special assignments" Colson referred to? One of them most logically involved buttering up Howard Hughes, the biggest client of the PR firm where Hunt worked. But what were the others? Was Hunt digging dirt up on Ted Kennedy BEFORE he was even working at the White House? Maybe you can contact Colson and find out?
When examined from a distance, it CAN be argued that the one man who was a political beneficiary of the assassinations of JFK, MLKjr, RFK, as well as Chappaquiddick and the shooting of George Wallace was Richard Nixon. However, the only evidence of Nixon's involvement in any of these events is the George Wallace shooting...and that evidence is not totally incriminating. Nixon's tapes show that he WANTED to be involved in the Wallace caper, at least immediately after the fact.
Nixon was a vindictive man; forgiveness wasn't in his nature. And JFK was the person who made Nixon a "loser" in 1960. In fact, Nixon's 1962 defeat in the California gubernatorial race could, to a degree, be credited to the "loser" tag that had adhered to Nixon after the '60 presidential election. A brooding Nixon was probably very delighted, privately, by JFK's assassination. But the actual EVIDENCE that Nixon participated at any level in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK is simply lacking.
Martin Luther King Jr. was more than a social force in 1968; he was becoming a political force, His presence in Memphis in support of the sanitation workers' strike, and the accompanying news coverage, showed the nation that blacks--many of whom were to vote in their first presidential elections thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965--were eager to follow this charismatic black leader. And King's politics were primarily those of the Democratic Party [exception being his opposition to the Vietnam war]. With King's assassination, the primary leader of the black community was gone.
Nixon's hatred of the Kennedy family is evidenced on the White House tapes, as the word "Kennedys" is usually preceded by the words "those goddamned" more often than not. As a relative latecomer to the '68 presidential campaign, Bobby Kennedy's election in '68 was anything but sure. In fact, after the California primary, RFK still didn't have enough delegates to win the nomination, although the momentum favored Kennedy. Upon Kennedy's assassination, Democratic frontrunner Eugene McCarthy's campaign all but closed up shop as well, and the less-than-charismatic Hubert Humphrey became the Democratic nominee. Less-than enthusiastic Democrat voters then failed to warm to Humphrey, and Nixon won the White House.
Had JFK lived, it's probable that he would have defeated Goldwater in '64. It's also probable that, whether or not the JFK assassination had occurred, Bobby Kennedy would have been elected in '68, had he won the nomination. And had Martin Luther King Jr. lived through the '68 election, it's almost certain that he would've encouraged black first-time voters to support a Democrat anti-war candidate such as either RFK or McCarthy. All of these fact-based assumptions lead us to the inescapable conclusion that the primary political beneficiary of all three assassinations, when considered together, was not LBJ but Richard Nixon.
But there just isn't sufficient evidence that Nixon was behind any of them. This isn't to say that I don't think Nixon's guilty; but over the past 30 years, I have been unable to find evidence that links Nixon to the acts themselves. Therefore, while I can raise the question about Nixon's involvement, I can't prove it. Therefore, it would be unfair--and WRONG-- to claim it as fact. If, one great day, mankind is priveleged to know the whole truth about such things, I'd wager that I'll be vindicated in the above scenario. But in the absence of FACTS, I only have suspicions.
And suspicions prove NOTHING, Lynne.
Nixon was a vindictive man; forgiveness wasn't in his nature. And JFK was the person who made Nixon a "loser" in 1960. In fact, Nixon's 1962 defeat in the California gubernatorial race could, to a degree, be credited to the "loser" tag that had adhered to Nixon after the '60 presidential election. A brooding Nixon was probably very delighted, privately, by JFK's assassination. But the actual EVIDENCE that Nixon participated at any level in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK is simply lacking.
Martin Luther King Jr. was more than a social force in 1968; he was becoming a political force, His presence in Memphis in support of the sanitation workers' strike, and the accompanying news coverage, showed the nation that blacks--many of whom were to vote in their first presidential elections thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965--were eager to follow this charismatic black leader. And King's politics were primarily those of the Democratic Party [exception being his opposition to the Vietnam war]. With King's assassination, the primary leader of the black community was gone.
Nixon's hatred of the Kennedy family is evidenced on the White House tapes, as the word "Kennedys" is usually preceded by the words "those goddamned" more often than not. As a relative latecomer to the '68 presidential campaign, Bobby Kennedy's election in '68 was anything but sure. In fact, after the California primary, RFK still didn't have enough delegates to win the nomination, although the momentum favored Kennedy. Upon Kennedy's assassination, Democratic frontrunner Eugene McCarthy's campaign all but closed up shop as well, and the less-than-charismatic Hubert Humphrey became the Democratic nominee. Less-than enthusiastic Democrat voters then failed to warm to Humphrey, and Nixon won the White House.
Had JFK lived, it's probable that he would have defeated Goldwater in '64. It's also probable that, whether or not the JFK assassination had occurred, Bobby Kennedy would have been elected in '68, had he won the nomination. And had Martin Luther King Jr. lived through the '68 election, it's almost certain that he would've encouraged black first-time voters to support a Democrat anti-war candidate such as either RFK or McCarthy. All of these fact-based assumptions lead us to the inescapable conclusion that the primary political beneficiary of all three assassinations, when considered together, was not LBJ but Richard Nixon.
But there just isn't sufficient evidence that Nixon was behind any of them. This isn't to say that I don't think Nixon's guilty; but over the past 30 years, I have been unable to find evidence that links Nixon to the acts themselves. Therefore, while I can raise the question about Nixon's involvement, I can't prove it. Therefore, it would be unfair--and WRONG-- to claim it as fact. If, one great day, mankind is priveleged to know the whole truth about such things, I'd wager that I'll be vindicated in the above scenario. But in the absence of FACTS, I only have suspicions.
And suspicions prove NOTHING, Lynne.
QUOTE (Mark Knight @ Nov 14 2005, 01:57 PM)
When examined from a distance, it CAN be argued that the one man who was a political beneficiary of the assassinations of JFK, MLKjr, RFK, as well as Chappaquiddick and the shooting of George Wallace was Richard Nixon.
Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Nov 14 2005, 04:55 PM)
QUOTE (Lynne Foster @ Nov 14 2005, 04:29 PM)
Mat Wilson's article makes a great deal of sense and sheds a great deal of insight into a typical plot that involved members both in and out of government -making it practically impossible to produce a reliable, "official" record, to expose the operation. This memo dated January 12, 1971, from Charles W. Colson to George Ball, is quite interesting:
"Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned."
I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible:
Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you
Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA. Probably every person here has read this passage and has analyzed its every word. Tim Carroll created an online seminar last year called "The Bay of Pigs Thing" in which he tracked down the links between Watergate and the Assassination.
I do agree that the memo on Hunt is significant. If you look at the date of Colson's memo, it was several months before Hunt was officially hired by the White House. What were these "special assignments" Colson referred to? One of them most logically involved buttering up Howard Hughes, the biggest client of the PR firm where Hunt worked. But what were the others? Was Hunt digging dirt up on Ted Kennedy BEFORE he was even working at the White House? Maybe you can contact Colson and find out?
"smoking gun tape" is a good way to describe it. Thanks for the info, I just wish that others were as helpful.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.