Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Jolliffe

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Jolliffe

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,020 profile views
  1. David, What's your take on McGeorge Bundy's role in the critical revision of the draft of NSAM 273, the one prepared for (presumably JFK) on Thursday, 11/21/63 in Honolulu but then finalized the next week in Washington for LBJ? http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html
  2. Actually, Jim, it's a little bit better than that - Katzenbach hand wrote his draft of this memo on Sunday evening, November 24. Harold Weisberg dug out the longhand version, hand-written on a yellow legal pad. As Weisberg noted to me, it was not typed on Sunday evening because no typists were available on Sunday evenings. So, the memo above, typed on Monday, November 25, was actually prepared within just a very few hours of "Oswald's" murder, and shortly after Katzenbach had received at least two separate phone calls from Eugene Rostow, telling/pressuring/cajoling him to get LBJ to create the Warren Commission. Rostow was so concerned that his message had not resonated with Katzenbach that he then placed the infamous call to Bill Moyers before 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoon. That call was taped, and in it, we can hear Rostow crank up the pressure on Moyers to get LBJ to act. So, this memo, in which Katzenbach laid out the basics of the coverup before "Oswald" was even cold, was the immediate result of intense pressure on the Johnson administration from outside the U.S. government. That pressure came from the conspirators, and Eugene Rostow was their mouthpiece . . .
  3. The irony in your position is, of course, that had they conducted a real investigation, an honest investigation, there would have been no danger of WWIII: neither the Soviets nor the Cubans assassinated President Kennedy! By failing to investigate the crime, those who thought they knew what was best for the country actually increased the possibility of a nuclear armageddon! Once the "Oswald did it all by himself" facade fell away, the finger of suspicion would fall on the Communists in the USSR and Cuba and no belated admission that the original "investigation" was deliberately botched for "benign" reasons would have been accepted. The JFK murder was carried out by forces within the United States (almost certainly under the general direction of Allen Dulles, although he was not the ultimate sponsor. Even Dulles could not have acted without the tacit approval of super elites here.) Peter Dale Scott has long argued that the crime was plotted in such a way as to seemingly threaten national security and therefore, a built-in incentive to find a "lone-nut, no conspiracy" solution was enormous. But that only makes sense if the investigators honestly believed that "Oswald" shot the president. Since the evidence against "Oswald" was so deficient, any investigator had to know the reason he was killed was not so much to shut his mouth, but to hide the weakness of the pre-fabricated case against him. Only a dead "Oswald" spared the conspirators the certainty that the planted evidence against him would fall apart at a trial. Dead "Oswald", no trial. No trial, no testing of the evidence. No testing of the evidence, no revelation that the assasination was actually a conspiracy.
  4. Rich, I strongly suspect that Eugene Rostow was speaking for the sponsors (and apparently had one with him at that very moment in his office) on Sunday afternoon, November 24, 1963! Rostow should have been interrogated under oath about his repeated Sunday afternoon phone calls to Katzenbach and his later call to Moyers. At that moment, "Oswald's" body was not even cold - yet Rostow's pressing concern was to make sure that LBJ created a body that would issue a "no - conspiracy" finding! The ultimate sponsors of the assassination were in Yale Law School Dean Eugene Rostow's social and political circle - he knew exactly on whose behalf he was speaking.
  5. Yes, Ron, that's the way I read the article, too. Whatever we may think LBJ's role in the assassination was, this article provides no support for anything.
  6. Cory, The most interesting extended analysis of the formation of the Warren Commission (and all of the attendant pressure on LBJ to form such a commission) can be found in Donald Gibson's "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up". The first 130 pages or so are magnificent - I highly urge you (and everyone else) to read Gibson's work. The pressure on LBJ to have a quasi-independent body offer up a counter to whatever the FBI might come up with started on Sunday afternoon, 11/24/63 with phone calls from Yale Law School Dean Eugene Rostow to Acting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. While those phone calls were not recorded, we do have the tape of Rostow's call to Bill Moyers (LBJ's Special Assistant and later Press Secretary), which was compeleted before 4:00 pm. "Oswald's" body was not even cold yet! No one knew at that moment what the hell was going on! Yet Rostow had one overriding mission - to get LBJ to create a body that would issue a no-conspiracy finding. I commend Gibson's work - it is invaluable in helping us to hear from where the pressure came. https://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Assassination-Cover-up-Donald-Gibson/dp/1615779639
  7. You don't get it, do you Tracy? All of those "alternative explanations" that you claim disprove the H&L thesis (never mind whether they are slipshod, juvenile, illogical and, in some cases, downright stupid) none of it matters! It was not up to you nor me nor anyone else to find "alternative explanations" - it was up to the Warren Commission to explain these problems in THIER OWN EVIDENCE! The reason you and I and everyone else is having this discussion today, 55 years after the issuance of their report, is because they, the Warren Commission completely failed to address any of this! Those on the WC aware of the evidentiary problems sought desperately to avoid the implications, and yet, some of the truth did slip out - they (inadvertently) published the Fall 1953 public school records indicating that there were indeed two different LHO's in two different schools in two different states. You may claim that this (and everything else) has all been "altenative explained" away elsewhere all you like, but the fact remains: It was up to the Warren Commission to explain it, and their collective failure (they couldn't even answer such a simple question as "where did the accused go to junior high in the fall of 1953?") voids all their conclusions about anything for all time.
  8. Steve, Peter Dale Scott has long argued that "Oswald's" Russian defection was a part of CIA Counter-Intelligence Chief James Angleton's long-running operation to ferret out a suspected mole in the CIA. Scott's impressive work has been supported by others for decades. Was that (the molehunt) the sole purpose of "Oswald's" defection? Probably not. It was probably piggy-backed onto any number of objectives from any number of American intelligence agencies. The main thing though is that the defection itself was a "false" defection, and if Scott is right, then whether "Oswald" actually gulled the Russians into buying him as a real defector was ultimately not that important to Angleton. Angleton was hunting moles in America, not trying to elicit clandestine information about the USSR from teenage "defectors." (That's my conclusion, not Peter Dale Scott's.) I believe that is why "Oswald" was sent on such a hair-brained scheme - were the CIA/ONI/M-2 really so stupid as to believe that the Soviets would fall for "Oswald" as a true defector? From the available evidence, it would seem that the Soviets saw right through "Oswald" in a matter of days. And treated him as anything but a true defector for years after. As to Marita Lorenz and her Florida LHO, well, somebody was down there using the name LHO at some point. Hell, even the LHO who walked into Carlos Bringuier's store in New Orleans seemingly claimed to have been in Florida! Here is Vance Blalock's testimony: Mr. LIEBELER - What did you think of Oswald?Mr. BLALOCK - He seemed like a very intelligent man to me, well spoken, looked well dressed, well groomed.Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think anything else about him, or is that about it?Mr. BLALOCK - That is the impression that I got right at the moment.Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say anything about Florida?Mr. BLALOCK - Just mentioned the Cuban anti-Castro organization there.Mr. LIEBELER - What did he say about that?Mr. BLALOCK - I don't remember exactly, but I think he said he had been there and he had looked into it. I couldn't say for sure on that.Mr. LIEBELER - Did he mention the name of the organization?Mr. BLALOCK - No, sir. No, I don't recall any name. Later: Mr. LIEBELER - So the best you can recall, Oswald didn't say that he had recently visited someone in the Cosa Nostra?Mr. BLALOCK - No, sir. Yes, sir.Mr. LIEBELER - But you do recall sort of vaguely that Oswald did say that he had been in Florida and he had visited an Anti-Castro Cuban organization there?Mr. BLALOCK - Yes, sir; I do. Blalock's testimony was NOT contradicted by his friend, Philip Geraci: Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember whether Oswald said anything about having been in Florida?Mr. GERACI - In Florida?Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.Mr. GERACI - I am not too sure about that.Mr. LIEBELER - You don't remember one way or the other whether----Mr. GERACI - The only thing I remember about Florida is when he asked was headquarters down there. He could have, but I don't know. But better than that, the FBI itself had allegations from a witness, John K. Kaylock, that LHO was in Punta Gorda Florida on October, 2, 1963, apparently predicting the assassination. Was Kaylock a crackpot? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The FBI did NOT want to know. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96509#relPageId=6&tab=page What I do know is that the CIA really, really wanted to know what the author Nathaniel Weyl had been told about LHO in Florida. Here is a declassified document CIA analyst Helene Finan from 1964: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10121-10377.pdf So, was at least one LHO in Florida when another LHO was somewhere else? A helluva lot of intelligence agents sure thought so as far back as 1964 . . .
  9. David, When I mentioned Earl Warren's presidential ambitions, I was referring specifically to his decision to support FDR's 1942 Japanese Internment Executive Order. Absolutely Earl Warren wanted to be president of the United States, and in 1948, he almost came a heartbeat away. After all, it took a miracle in 1948 for Harry Truman to defeat the Republican nominee, Thomas Dewey and his vice presidential nominee . . . Earl Warren.
  10. If (IF) that were the case, then Warren's only honorable choice was to resign from the commission. Resignation rather than the active promotion of an obviously false "solution" would have at least salvaged some of his reputation and probably would have helped America to get closer to the truth. Instead, he chose the politically expedient path and denounced any and all who voiced even the slightest doubts about his findings. No, I am afraid Joe that you and I will have to disagree about Warren. And such disagreement, in a free forum such as this one, is a perfectly fine thing.
  11. And yet, remarkably, just yesterday Lance admitted that he could provide no explanation for the conflicting school records fiasco. Further, Lance demanded that it was up to the H&L supporters to explain the incompatible documents published by the Warren Commission: (" If you think these records on their face show something inexplicably mysterious, why don't you contact the respective schools, school districts or state departments of education and see what they say? My guess is that the "mystery" would immediately go poof - and that's what you fear. The H&L game is to posit "mysteries" on the basis of documents that may appear inconsistent because you don't know enough about the subject matter to understand what they actually say, then to "solve" those mysteries with "Harvey" and "Lee.") Tracy, it appears you and I agree that the documentary record shows that someone named "Lee Harvey Oswald" enrolled at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans on January 13, 1954 after he and his mother left NYC. I have news for you Tracy - all H&L supporters accept that as a fact. No one disputes that. So, stating the obvious does nothing for your argument. The real problem, once again, is that the Warren Commission published this record from the fall of 1953 in NYC: And the Warren Commission also published this record from New Orleans from the fall of 1953: Just as Jim Hargrove and John Armstrong have long contended, these documents conflict. They don't match. They are incongruous. "Lee Harvey Oswald" could not be in both NYC (at P.S. 44 in the Bronx) and at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans in the fall of 1953 ("1953 -54 - Report 1") If there was an explanation for this mismatch, the Warren Commission was obligated to provide it. (Not the defenders of H&L. The burden of proof was then, and shall ever be, on those who defend the Warren Commission's version of events.) The Warren Commission made no attempt to explain any of this, probably because those who knew of it could provide no "innocent" (i.e. no conspiracy) explanation. As to why they published it? My guess is that not all of those responsible for drafting the report were fully appraised of the "problem", and that in the crunch of the deadline, some of the truth inadvertently slipped out. In any event, it is not up to us to explain this. That failure lies for all time with those malefactors of the "official solution", the Warren Commission.
  12. David, I realize this is almost turning into a separate thread about Earl Warren, but I must respectfully disagree. Whatever you or I may think about Warren's role in the 1954 Brown vs. the Board landmark decision must be weighed by his role in the 1942 decision to support FDR's plan to lock up roughly 80,000 Japanese-Americans citizens in California. These 80,000 people were American citizens! (FDR also locked up about 35,000 Japanese nationals without any due process. I don't like that, but to lock up actual American citizens is an entirely different matter, and should have been completely unacceptable!) And Mr. Civil Rights, Earl Warren, was more than fine with it! Warren was the Governor of California, and I suspect he had one finger in the political wind - he was aiming at the White House, I suspect. For whatever reason, Warren was willing in 1942 to trample the rights of American citizens. It would seem, in 1964, that he was fine with conducting a sham "investigation." We don't know the truth about the JFK assassination today because he was too (scared? unwilling? intimidated?) to conduct an honest investigation then.
  13. Joe, Whatever faith Russell may have had early on in his career in the FBI had disappeared by the time of the Warren Commission. Russell repeatedly told friends, colleagues and associates that the FBI's investigation was insufficient, shoddy and inaccurate. Personally, I doubt that Russell really understood the implications for the "solution" if the magic bullet theory was rejected. We know that without the magic bullet theory, the entire no-conspiracy answer collapses into nothing. But I don't think Russell really comprehended that. He didn't like Earl Warren, he didn't trust the FBI, and in the end, he was disgusted enough with LBJ's willingness to facilitate the cover-up that Russell even broke his longtime friendship with Johnson. Before he died in 1971, Richard Russell had even urged a private researcher (Harold Weisberg) to pick up the trail and conduct a real investigation. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bhMwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aTMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3085%2C4917493
  14. Karl, Given the casual seated positions of both the press photographers in the immediate foreground and the Secret Service agents in the Queen Mary (at least three of them have at least one leg outside their respective vehicles, and the photographer to our right seems to have both legs outside the car!) it doesn't seem very likely that the motorcade could have been traveling very fast. You're right that it is a highway, but those vehicles just couldn't have been zipping along - those guys would have risked tumbling out.
  15. Harold Weisberg long ago insisted to me (Weisberg somehow got ahold of a witness) that when Hoover learned of the assassination, he flipped out. As Weisberg said, the most important dictum FBI-ese was "cover the Bureau's ass" and the second one was "cover your own ass." Weisberg stated that Hoover was mortified that the FBI would be blamed for failing to prevent the assassination, and that the obvious, immediate answer was to craft a solution with a "lone nut", a person flying under the FBI's radar. After all, no one could blame the FBI for failing to uncover a conspiracy if in fact the "lone nut" had conspired with no one. "Oswald's" arrest meant all FBI fingers would be pointed at him, and "Oswald's" murder solved the problem of having to prove their case against him in court. The "evidence" would never be tested, and that was fine with Hoover. Was Hoover also vulnerable to blackmail from Mob/CIA sources about his personal life? Of course. Did Hoover fear the CIA? Yup. Was "Oswald" a long-time creature of the CIA, foisted in 1963 on an unwitting FBI to ensure their help in the cover-up of the assassination? Seems awfully likely to me. Apparently Hoover realized belatedly just how trapped the FBI was. The CIA had done its homework. They knew how the FBI would react. And they were right.
  • Create New...