Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
John Simkin

Who Killed JFK?: Poll and Discussion?

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

See also:

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

Share this post


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

John... Jim Marrs and I discussed this a lot back in the 80s. Jim explained that these diverse groups did not "COME TOGETHER", but each had their own motives. Jim proposed that they had a loose connection which Jim referred to as having happened often in history... A CONCERT OF IDEAS.

That is, they were LIKE-MINDED, working for the same goal, but not necessarily cooperating. He gave as an example... suppose the Dallas police or Secret Service let it be known that PROTECTION WOULD BE LAX IN DEALEY PLAZA, then another group WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE of the laxity, without actually being in league with those who leaked the information.

As for nobody talking, dozens did. Foremost of these was LBJ himself, who confided in his Dallas lover, Madeleine Brown.

Jack ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John A. McCone: That is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John A. McCone: No.

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

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

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

John A. McCone: That is correct.

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

John A. McCone: That is right.

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

you said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Edited by Anthony Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

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

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

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

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

Again, thank you for your kind note - lily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you at least say how you get from MCone/Morales to Oswald, and how they set Oswald up?

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

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

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

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

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

Another clue concerns what happened after the assassination. Those involved believed that the reason for this plot was that after the assassination, LBJ would order the invasion of Cuba. In fact, this was never the objective. It was part of the overall conspiracy to keep Castro in power. The presence of a communist state so close to the United States helped to reinforce the communist threat and the need for massive arms spending.

The Cubans would obviously feel betrayed when they realised Castro would not be toppled. Those Cubans who knew anything about the assassination had to be got rid of. In the period after the assassination of JFK the Cubans involved were sent on missions to Cuba where they were killed. (They were probably set up). This is what happened to Tony Cuesta. While in captivity he realised what had happened. A few Cubans remained. Some of these were the victims of hit men (who had no idea why they were killing them). Some managed to survive. Why? Maybe because they took out insurance. They let it be known that they had documented what happened. This information has been placed with lawyers, solicitors, etc., only to be opened in event of a suspicious death.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

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

Ever so happy to have come across this forum!

Antti Hynonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Edited by Anthony Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rasp

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

My own views are that President Kennedy was murdered for a variety of reasons:

he was perceived by his enemies as 'going soft' on Communism: he was seen by some as a threat to their huge profits especially in the military and oil industries.

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

He was shot in broad daylight - literally - at 12:30 p.m. local time.

The arrogance of his assassins is breathtaking. They had planned it so well. They took every precaution to pin the blame on an innocent man and yet the fingerprints of these vile assassins are all over the foul deed.

Will the truth ever be known?

The truth IS known!

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

EBC

Edited by Rasp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×