Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Jolliffe

Members
  • Content Count

    499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Jolliffe

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,673 profile views
  1. All of these points are valid, but really isn't it just a simple matter that studying the JFK assassination is hard, and for most people, it is too intellectually demanding for them? Most ordinary people trust the mainstream media at least a little on most issues. So when the MSM presents its universal, monolithic "Oswald did it, Oswald did it alone, and Oswald did it because he was a nut" theory, well then most folks assume that must have some veneer of truth to it. I realize that lots of people still have doubts about the Warren Commission's basic conclusions, but most people just
  2. W. Niederhut, I can't speak for others on this thread, but my point in citing the extended quote from work of Howard Jones above was to lend support to your claim that Prouty (and Krulak) had a key hand in drafting the Taylor/McNamara Report. Howard Jones, in his seminal "Death of a Generation: How the Assassinations of Diem and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War", did not mention either Prouty or Krulak by name in that passage. However, the Michael Forrestal material confirms that the basics of that report - not merely the outline, but the guts of it - was written in advance, in Washin
  3. "JFK was not sold on the recommendations from the Krulak/Mendenhall Mission so he sent McNamara and Taylor a week later for a second opinion." Rob, there was no single clear-cut recommendation from Krulak and Mendenhall. President Kennedy was so taken aback by the completely differing accounts from his two men - men whose mission was to provide support for the president's position that American training of and logistical and technical support for the ARVN could now begin to be scaled back on a major scale - that Kennedy infamously asked of Krulak and Mendenhall "You two did visit th
  4. Jim, James Galbraith asked two decades ago "Was Nhu in discussions with intermediaries for Ho Chi Minh, with the possibility that there might have been a deal between North and South to boot the Americans from Vietnam? It appears that he was. And had he succeeded, it would have saved infinite trouble." https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/galbraith.html Any deal between Diem and Ho which ended America's military involvement in Vietnam meant no later, wider Vietnam War. This, of course, was completely unacceptable to the hawks in both Saigon and Washington. The removal of Die
  5. Fascinating as it is to look at these documents, I still want to know more about the last-minute talks in which Diem was (allegedly) willing to engage with Ho Chi MInh. James Galbraith asked two decades ago "Was Nhu in discussions with intermediaries for Ho Chi Minh, with the possibility that there might have been a deal between North and South to boot the Americans from Vietnam? It appears that he was. And had he succeeded, it would have saved infinite trouble." https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/galbraith.html We need to discover exactly who knew about this approach, both in
  6. Jim, Is it a coincidence that Ed Lansdale "retired" within hours of the Diem brothers' assassinations? If, as many believe, there was plenty of CIA foreknowledge/involvement with the fate of the Diem brothers on November 1, 1963, then certainly Lansdale must have known. James Galbraith wrote two decades ago that there were last minute indications that Ngo Dinh Diem was actually trying to cut a last-second deal with Ho Chi Minh, one that would have led to prompt American Military withdrawal. If true, then I can easily see why ruthless officers within the CIA, hellbent on an
  7. "Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. " Jim, I've written before that I never believed that Oliver Stone got Nixon quite right - Stone was sure that Nixon's policy of governance (cards close to the vest, no leaks, don't use the regular government channels, such as the State Department, etc.) was a function of RMN's personality. Stone even invented dialogue between Pat and Richard Nixon in which she wailed that he wouldn't let anyone in, not even her. That is the conventional view to explain why Nixon was so secretive and "p
  8. Yes, that's how read it too, Sandy. It is just barely conceivable to me that Angleton might (might) have been telling the literal truth: he did not KNOW who did it. However, there is no possibility that he could not have strongly SUSPECTED who did it, and with a little digging, he could have found out. If James Angleton truly did not know "who struck John", well that's because he didn't want to know. Angleton had to have aware of the "Oswald" file for years before 1963. The manipulation of the "Oswald" file at CIA HQ and the false cables to and from Mexico City about "Oswal
  9. Thanks, Chris. Since I've never been up there, it was useful for me to see extensive continuous footage. Very helpful in providing perspective.
  10. As I look at the close-up photos of the limo's windshield outside Parkland, I am not convinced there was really a through-and-through hole in it. There might have been, but I can't see it. I know there are witnesses who insist the windshield was a hole and not a spidery crack, and maybe they are correct. But . . . I guess I am on the fence on this: I can't really believe a high-powered rifle shot through the windshield would leave such (relatively) little damage to the windshield. Does anyone have any photographic evidence of rifle shots penetrating any other vehicle's windshiel
  11. "2.) The FBI removed a portion of curb stone from the location where James Tague stood on the day of the assassination. There was clear evidence of a bullet strike to this piece of concrete. Their laboratory results indicated the presence of lead in this defect, but no copper, thereby rendering the results "inconclusive". The whole FBI/James Tague curbstone removal thing is fascinating - the FBI did NOT want to have anything to do with a missed shot, and they certainly did not want to deal with Tague. The Warren Commission duly ignored the Tague shot until U.S. Attorney (for Da
  12. So I'm guessing that this photo was taken from the south side of the overpass, not the South Knoll, correct? There is no doubt that this would be (virtually) a straight on shot at the president. And it appears any shot would have to pass through the windshield. Of course, as I argued months ago, almost the same angle works back the other way too: the Dal-Tex building, especially the south side windows. (No back window to deflect either!) Which I suspect was indeed a firing point, behind not only the president, but also behind the crowds lining Houston Street. Everyone would be looki
  13. Yes, the Ruby hit is a possible pathway to the conspirators, but obviously the WC did not want to go down that path. I can't believe that was because Jack Ruby was only a function of the mob. I don't believe that's all he was. No, he was U.S. Intelligence - connected for years. We all know about his short-lived 1959 stint as a narc for the FBI, but clearly, anybody running guns to Cuba and high up in the Dallas drug trade for years before the assassination was no mere mob hitman. Jack Ruby was an asset/source for law enforcement at the local, state and federal levels. Jack Revill all
  14. Ron, Did you take a picture from behind that last pillar on the southern part of the overpass? You crouched down beside that pillar - it's that very view back up Elm Street that I'd like to see. If you did take a picture, will you post it?
×
×
  • Create New...