Jump to content
The Education Forum
Myra Bronstein

How did the capture of a live Lee Oswald change the plot?

Recommended Posts

I think we need to look at the big picture here. Most of us agree that some of the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination of JFK. Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation? Keep in mind that not only does this theory make no sense in light of what happened in the immediate aftermath, or over the ensuing years, it also makes no sense in light of what had been transpiring during JFK's term of office. They had been trying to topple Castro, first through the Bay of Pigs, and then with their ludicrous assassination attempts, throughout the Kennedy White House years. Since he obviously couldn't stop them from doing that, and since they were literally at war with each other, why would they feel the necessity of killing the President of the United States in order to achieve a goal they hadn't accomplished despite years of effort? As for imagining that the public would rally around them once the dead assassin was exposed as a Castro sympathizer, why weren't they pushing this theory from the beginning? On the contrary, the lone assassin nonsense was visible as early as a few hours after Oswald had been arrested, when McGeorge Bundy assured the members of the cabinet (who were flying back from Hawaii) that the assassin had been caught and there was no conspiracy. If Bundy was involved in the planning of the assassination, as I suspect he was, wouldn't he have been pushing a "Castro did it" mantra? Also, if you watch the NBC news coverage from November 22, 1963, you will see lots of evidence of the lone nut scenario, even before Oswald was caught. Constant references to "an assassin" or "a sniper," and no mention of all the police and witnesses running towards the grassy knoll. I don't see how the news coverage changed once Oswald was arrested, or after he was murdered. I think the basics of the Warren Report could be seen in the moments right after JFK was pronounced dead that afternoon. Another point- if the plan to topple Castro was scrapped as soon as Oswald was captured alive, then why did the media-who was certainly covering up already by the time Oswald was in custody-keep pushing the defection to Russia and Oswald's connections to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? What was the need for that, at that point? Were they still planning an invasion, but stopped for some reason? I'm sorry for asking so many questions, but none of this makes any sense to me. It's certainly a lot easier to speculate that Vietnam was the primary reason behind the assassination, since we see an immediate policy shift by LBJ right after the assassination. If JFK was killed by conspirators who wanted us to become more involved in Vietnam, and knew he wanted to pull out, then this is exactly what we would expect to see, isn't it?

I know that there are now many researchers who argue that the conspiracy and the coverup were separate and that different people were involved in each. That certainly has to be true, but how do we explain the continuing nature of the coverup? What forces could compel the top brass at ABC and talking head Peter Jennings to produce the ridiculous special they aired during the 40th anniversary time frame? What, beyond financial reward, motivates someone like Vince Bugliosi to produce his mammoth disinformation piece "Reclaiming History?" What possible reason lies behind Tom Hanks agreeing to become involved in this farce (it certainly can't be for financial reward)? Do we honestly think that the media, and every elected political figure, continues to lie about the assassination of JFK to protect the planned coup of Castro, and the fact it was abandoned because Oswald was captured alive? Common sense tells us that, at this point in time, 40 years after the event, there had to have been extraordinarily important reasons behind the assassination, in order to trigger these continuing lies. I believe that those who covered up the truth, and continue to cover up the truth about the assassination of JFK, did so at the behest of the same powerful forces who killed him, and that the reasons behind both the murder and the coverup did not really involve our policy towards Castro.

What if a powerful participant is still alive, became president, and

thru his puppet son who is also president, still wields enormous

influence on many levels? I suggest that the power of S&B goes

far beyond a little building at Yale.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation?

Certainly not. If anyone has argued that here, I missed it. The goal of the assassination was to get rid of JFK. Unless it was arranged as some kind of "accident," they would need a patsy. Castro was the ideal patsy, for blaming him could spark an invasion of Cuba, killing "two birds with one stone" to use that phrase once again.

The U.S. military was dead serious about getting rid of Castro, as all their false flag proposals called Operation Northwoods starkly show. But that was not the purpose of killing JFK. Getting Cuba back would be a bonus, but JFK was going to die no matter what.

Once they planned to make Castro the patsy, it meant that the assassination had to be brutal and bloody, the work of a Castro hit team that would enrage the nation. Oswald was the secondary patsy, to seal the deal by being exposed as a shooter who then was to flee to Cuba.

It makes perfect sense to me, and certainly seems the most likely purpose of the sheep-dipping of Oswald, the plane out of Redbird, and the whole bit. I think they panicked a bit when Oswald was taken alive, as it eliminated all the post-assassination evidence they had planned to use against him and Castro. They decided that the American people, guided properly by the media and their new, saddened president, were dumb enough to accept Oswald as a lone nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we need to look at the big picture here.

Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, ppg 299-300:

(quote on, emphasis added)

There are those who object that no conspiracy, of the scale contemplated

in this book, could have remained a secret for so long in a society as open

as America's. Admittedly, the open surface of our society is no mere facade.

However, as I suggested at the beginning of this book, beneath the open surface

lie connections and relationships of long-standing, immune to disclosure,

and capable of great crimes including serial murder.

The postwar international alliance between intelligence and drug traffickers

is perhaps the best-documented instance of such a connection, one where

denial persists despite limited revelations about the 1960-63 plots to

murder Fidel Castro. It is not the only such connection, and indeed merges with

others, notably unassailable networks responsible for gambling and prostitution in

the United States.

There are two other special reasons for suspecting the intelligence-sanctioned

drug networks in particular. One is their role in connecting so many disparately

centered different networks, from FBN to FBI to foreign casinos to local corruption

in Dallas and elsewhere. The other is their key role in transnational connections

to the deep politics of Mexico and Nicaragua, two countries clearly involved in the

assassination story.

(quote off)

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of us agree that some of the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination of JFK. Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation?

Don,

What do the following have in common?

* Cuba in the 50's

* Vietnam mid-60's to mid-70's

* Afghanistan post-9/11/01

6 letter word, starts with H...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation?

Certainly not. If anyone has argued that here, I missed it. The goal of the assassination was to get rid of JFK. Unless it was arranged as some kind of "accident," they would need a patsy. Castro was the ideal patsy, for blaming him could spark an invasion of Cuba, killing "two birds with one stone" to use that phrase once again.

The U.S. military was dead serious about getting rid of Castro, as all their false flag proposals called Operation Northwoods starkly show. But that was not the purpose of killing JFK. Getting Cuba back would be a bonus, but JFK was going to die no matter what.

Once they planned to make Castro the patsy, it meant that the assassination had to be brutal and bloody, the work of a Castro hit team that would enrage the nation. Oswald was the secondary patsy, to seal the deal by being exposed as a shooter who then was to flee to Cuba.

It makes perfect sense to me, and certainly seems the most likely purpose of the sheep-dipping of Oswald, the plane out of Redbird, and the whole bit. I think they panicked a bit when Oswald was taken alive, as it eliminated all the post-assassination evidence they had planned to use against him and Castro. They decided that the American people, guided properly by the media and their new, saddened president, were dumb enough to accept Oswald as a lone nut.

Ron,

Oh, never mind. Agree to disagree.

Hasten the day that we know for sure.

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great thread.

I think it WAS about Cuba for the originators of the plot, who, in the end, would be cast aside by far more powerful political players.

IMO, the plot that culminated in Kennedy's death was compartmentalized by necessity. The post-Cuban missile crisis rumblings that first coalesced into active planning for Kennedy's murder could not have succeeded without some degree of information/cooperation from people inside the Johnson camp. In particular,information was needed about the developing Kennedy visit to Texas. This trip was lobbied for and planned by the Johnson/Connally forces, and was known to be a near-certainty no later than April 23, 1963.

The eventual involvement of people close to Johnson with the Morales/Phillips/anti-Castro zeolot plotters represented a marriage of convenience for both groups. They certainly did not fully share the same goals.

Peter Scott's phase one/phase two analysis represents a clear explanation of what actually DID occur but is, I think, unsatisfactory as a theory of the plot's conceptualization. The problem lies in the assumption that we are looking at one A-Z affair, in which the managers (Group 1) are making use of the passions of other groups in order to advance higher ends. If we switch focus, and assume the possibility that we are looking at a convergence of plots into a sometimes unwieldy whole, different possibilities emerge.

I assume that the people who created the sinister-looking Oswald-Kostikov link (people who would have to have been close to David Phillips) really DID want to provoke a war. I think that the Johnson people were NEVER interested in a U.S.-Cuban-Soviet conflict, but were simply interested in saving Johnson from political extinction, and in protecting/expanding the politico-economic empire Johnson and cronies had skillfully fashioned over the years. The Kennedys stood in the way of both groups.

If this theory of convergence has validity, we need to look for "crossover" types in 1963: people who had relevant connections to the Johnson camp and were also plugged tightly into anti-Castro-intelligence circles. I think they can be found.

In sum, I think that the plotting began with religious fervor, and in the end was whittled down to a very profitable, sophisticated investment plan. The twists and turns of the plotting as it developed during 1963 reflect the "chaos theory" inherent in Scott's deep political analysis.

The conspiracy to kill Kennedy is as intriguing and complex as a Parker Bros game.

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great thread.

I think it WAS about Cuba for the originators of the plot, who, in the end, would be cast aside by far more powerful political players.

IMO, the plot that culminated in Kennedy's death was compartmentalized by necessity. The post-Cuban missile crisis rumblings that first coalesced into active planning for Kennedy's murder could not have succeeded without some degree of information/cooperation from people inside the Johnson camp. In particular,information was needed about the developing Kennedy visit to Texas. This trip was lobbied for and planned by the Johnson/Connally forces, and was known to be a near-certainty no later than April 23, 1963.

The eventual involvement of people close to Johnson with the Morales/Phillips/anti-Castro zeolot plotters represented a marriage of convenience for both groups. They certainly did not fully share the same goals.

Peter Scott's phase one/phase two analysis represents a clear explanation of what actually DID occur but is, I think, unsatisfactory as a theory of the plot's conceptualization. The problem lies in the assumption that we are looking at one A-Z affair, in which the managers (Group 1) are making use of the passions of other groups in order to advance higher ends. If we switch focus, and assume the possibility that we are looking at a convergence of plots into a sometimes unwieldy whole, different possibilities emerge.

I assume that the people who created the sinister-looking Oswald-Kostikov link (people who would have to have been close to David Phillips) really DID want to provoke a war. I think that the Johnson people were NEVER interested in a U.S.-Cuban-Soviet conflict, but were simply interested in saving Johnson from political extinction, and in protecting/expanding the politico-economic empire Johnson and cronies had skillfully fashioned over the years. The Kennedys stood in the way of both groups.

If this theory of convergence has validity, we need to look for "crossover" types in 1963: people who had relevant connections to the Johnson camp and were also plugged tightly into anti-Castro-intelligence circles. I think they can be found.

In sum, I think that the plotting began with religious fervor, and in the end was whittled down to a very profitable, sophisticated investment plan. The twists and turns of the plotting as it developed during 1963 reflect the "chaos theory" inherent in Scott's deep political analysis.

The conspiracy to kill Kennedy is as intriguing and complex as a Parker Bros game.

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation?

Certainly not. If anyone has argued that here, I missed it. The goal of the assassination was to get rid of JFK. Unless it was arranged as some kind of "accident," they would need a patsy. Castro was the ideal patsy, for blaming him could spark an invasion of Cuba, killing "two birds with one stone" to use that phrase once again.

The U.S. military was dead serious about getting rid of Castro, as all their false flag proposals called Operation Northwoods starkly show. But that was not the purpose of killing JFK. Getting Cuba back would be a bonus, but JFK was going to die no matter what.

Once they planned to make Castro the patsy, it meant that the assassination had to be brutal and bloody, the work of a Castro hit team that would enrage the nation. Oswald was the secondary patsy, to seal the deal by being exposed as a shooter who then was to flee to Cuba.

It makes perfect sense to me, and certainly seems the most likely purpose of the sheep-dipping of Oswald, the plane out of Redbird, and the whole bit. I think they panicked a bit when Oswald was taken alive, as it eliminated all the post-assassination evidence they had planned to use against him and Castro. They decided that the American people, guided properly by the media and their new, saddened president, were dumb enough to accept Oswald as a lone nut.

I am with you Ron in believing the key link is Cuba. However, I have problems with the last paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that the original conspirators covered-up the evidence linking the assassination to Castro. The record shows that this was the work of LBJ, Hoover and Dulles. I am not convinced that these are the same people who organized the assassination. LBJ and Co covered up the assassination, not because they organized it because they did not like where a full-investigation of the assassination would go. If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we need to look at the big picture here. Most of us agree that some of the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination of JFK. Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation? Keep in mind that not only does this theory make no sense in light of what happened in the immediate aftermath, or over the ensuing years, it also makes no sense in light of what had been transpiring during JFK's term of office. They had been trying to topple Castro, first through the Bay of Pigs, and then with their ludicrous assassination attempts, throughout the Kennedy White House years. Since he obviously couldn't stop them from doing that, and since they were literally at war with each other, why would they feel the necessity of killing the President of the United States in order to achieve a goal they hadn't accomplished despite years of effort? As for imagining that the public would rally around them once the dead assassin was exposed as a Castro sympathizer, why weren't they pushing this theory from the beginning? On the contrary, the lone assassin nonsense was visible as early as a few hours after Oswald had been arrested, when McGeorge Bundy assured the members of the cabinet (who were flying back from Hawaii) that the assassin had been caught and there was no conspiracy. If Bundy was involved in the planning of the assassination, as I suspect he was, wouldn't he have been pushing a "Castro did it" mantra? Also, if you watch the NBC news coverage from November 22, 1963, you will see lots of evidence of the lone nut scenario, even before Oswald was caught. Constant references to "an assassin" or "a sniper," and no mention of all the police and witnesses running towards the grassy knoll. I don't see how the news coverage changed once Oswald was arrested, or after he was murdered. I think the basics of the Warren Report could be seen in the moments right after JFK was pronounced dead that afternoon. Another point- if the plan to topple Castro was scrapped as soon as Oswald was captured alive, then why did the media-who was certainly covering up already by the time Oswald was in custody-keep pushing the defection to Russia and Oswald's connections to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? What was the need for that, at that point? Were they still planning an invasion, but stopped for some reason? I'm sorry for asking so many questions, but none of this makes any sense to me. It's certainly a lot easier to speculate that Vietnam was the primary reason behind the assassination, since we see an immediate policy shift by LBJ right after the assassination. If JFK was killed by conspirators who wanted us to become more involved in Vietnam, and knew he wanted to pull out, then this is exactly what we would expect to see, isn't it?

I know that there are now many researchers who argue that the conspiracy and the coverup were separate and that different people were involved in each. That certainly has to be true, but how do we explain the continuing nature of the coverup? What forces could compel the top brass at ABC and talking head Peter Jennings to produce the ridiculous special they aired during the 40th anniversary time frame? What, beyond financial reward, motivates someone like Vince Bugliosi to produce his mammoth disinformation piece "Reclaiming History?" What possible reason lies behind Tom Hanks agreeing to become involved in this farce (it certainly can't be for financial reward)? Do we honestly think that the media, and every elected political figure, continues to lie about the assassination of JFK to protect the planned coup of Castro, and the fact it was abandoned because Oswald was captured alive? Common sense tells us that, at this point in time, 40 years after the event, there had to have been extraordinarily important reasons behind the assassination, in order to trigger these continuing lies. I believe that those who covered up the truth, and continue to cover up the truth about the assassination of JFK, did so at the behest of the same powerful forces who killed him, and that the reasons behind both the murder and the coverup did not really involve our policy towards Castro.

What if a powerful participant is still alive, became president, and

thru his puppet son who is also president, still wields enormous

influence on many levels? I suggest that the power of S&B goes

far beyond a little building at Yale.

Jack

Don: "...the lone assassin nonsense was visible as early as a few hours after Oswald had been arrested, when McGeorge Bundy assured the members of the cabinet (who were flying back from Hawaii) that the assassin had been caught and there was no conspiracy."

This ties in with the almost universally (IMO) wrongly understood "Katzenbach Memo".

_______________

Katzenbach quite correctly (not in a few hours) called for an open investigation that needed to produce a result that it was indeed a lone assassin sans Confederates (ie. a conspiracy) and that it would stand up in court.

This was not achieved, hence logically the inference follows: If the public, with full disclosure of the facts as Katzenbach asked for, is NOT satisfied then Conspiracy is on the agenda.

Instead, a faulty, non-full disclosure, 'conclusion' was presented and the public is NOT satisfied.

The Memo stands as a testament to proper procedure, a calm and measured response that has helped provide proof (or at least a strong indication) that there indeed was a conspiracy.

The fact that subsequent administrations continue to ignore the memo, and a series of investigations, just such as Katzenbach cautioned against, have further muddied the water is not his (or his superior at that time, RFK) fault.

IOW his memo is just what the doctor ordered, and the ignoring of it condems those who didn't follow through, not Katzenbach.

In fact, one can credibly argue that it, and hence Katzenbach, and other remnants of JFK's men, did, in various ways, plant the seeds that keeps the search for the solution on the agenda.

________________

The apparent shuffling of significant film frames in the printing of the WC that 'appears' to have escaped proof reading can be seen as another such example. Who did the setting up, proof reading and approval for printing of that portion? This question (regularly asked by me) remains unanswered.

________________

Don: "- if the plan to topple Castro was scrapped as soon as Oswald was captured alive, then why did the media-who was certainly covering up already by the time Oswald was in custody-keep pushing the defection to Russia and Oswald's connections to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? What was the need for that, at that point? Were they still planning an invasion, but stopped for some reason?"

Simple: as it is unprovable (because there is no proof, as it is irrelevant) it is a manageable dead end (the end of which has not been acknowledged or reached) that a slow trickle of tantalising leads continue to lead the searcher for the truth away from the truth. All that was needed was to bring it to the top of the agenda, where it has remained.

The other side of the coin is the anti cuban grouping. One begs the other. The arguments revolve around there, and the Confederates remain below the radar.

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been a great discussion. I truly respect Cliff and RCD, but strongly disagree with them. I think the tendency to connect Cuba to the assassination is misguided. Imho, JFK was killed because he threatened the status quo, and the powerful forces that run our world. I believe John F. Kennedy was the first true idealist to live in the White House since Thomas Jefferson. There were so many things that could have provided a motive to murder him:

-Intending to withdraw all troops from Vietnam by 1965

-Literally at war with the CIA

-At odds with FBI director Hoover

-Supposedly was going to drop LBJ from the ticket in 1964

-At odds with the leaders of Israel over their blossoming nuclear program

-The first president to curtail the power of the mafia

-Antagonized senior military folks in the Pentagon

-Made two of the most courageous speeches in American history- the American

University "peace" speech and the fantastic one about freedom of the press and

the consequences of secret societies

-Infuriated big business with his attempts to eliminate the oil-depletion allowance

and his riveting public condemnation of the steel industry

-Despised by segregationists for his support of civil rights

-Hated by anti-Castro Cuban exiles for his "failure" at the Bay of Pigs

I placed the anti-Castro motivation at the bottom of the list, along with segregationists, on purpose. Imho, on the list of possible motives, it belongs that far down the list. JFK was a special leader who made a lot of powerful enemies during his short term in office. Yes, I believe that people were ticked off at him for his attempts at rapproachment with Castro, but I think there were several more significant reasons for those powerful enemies to hate him and want him assassinated. I think that Oliver Stone's depiction of the conspiracy was probably pretty accurate, with a variety of powerful forces coming togther, like "something in the air," to achieve their objective.

Don, am impressive list and I agree with all of it, but I also think RCD is, as always, right on the money. Cuba was key in this coup. And that JFK and Castro were so very close to talking about restored relations literally on the eve of the assassination is instructive.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i am with you Ron in believing the key link is Cuba. However, I have problems with the last paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that the original conspirators covered-up the evidence linking the assassination to Castro. The record shows that this was the work of LBJ, Hoover and Dulles. I am not convinced that these are the same people who organized the assassination. LBJ and Co covered up the assassination, not because they organized it because they did not like where a full-investigation of the assassination would go. If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba.

John,

My problem is with the near-universal referencing of "the conspirators" and/or "the original conspirators." The terms are all-encompassing, vague, and simplistic, and their endless applications are, in my opinion, ultimately detrimental to our shared efforts to discover truth and effect justice.

I don't have the temerity to suggest that the three-tiered conspiracy structure that I postulate has been demonstrated to be an accurate depiction of reality. But I maintain that, as we move the focus of our investigative efforts (on this forum, at least) from the established "how" (conspiracy) to the questions of "who" and "why," we must come to some concensus regarding the design of the plot.

At further risk of being labled a nitpicker (or a nit-something else, I fear), I offer this: In my informed (I can but hope) opinion, the same people conceived of and sponored the organization, or grand design, of the assassination and the broad contours of one of their vile, brilliant creation's most important components -- the cover-up.

We are in lockstep agreement that "LBJ and Co" directed the cover-up. We part company here: In my grand design hypothesis, however, they did not possess, singularly or in the agregate, either the power or the authority or the chutzpah to defy the conspiracy's prime movers -- for whom they labored, to whom they reported, and, like JFK, at whose pleasure they served.

Hence I most respectfully and utterly disagree with your statement, "If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba."

Instead: Since the same people conceived of the assassination in all of its elements, including the cover-up, ordered its facilitation, and possessed the power -- indelibly demonstrated in Dealey Plaza -- to eliminate opposition to their plans, the US invasion of Cuba could not and indeed did not take place, according to plan.

Either that, or "LBJ and Co" thumbed their collective nose at the forces that destroyed JFK, and as a result suffered not the slightest negative consequence.

Charles Drago

Edited by Charles Drago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either that, or "LBJ and Co" thumbed their collective nose at the forces that destroyed JFK, and as a result suffered not the slightest negative consequence.

Good point. It could not have been a decision that LBJ made by himself. It was made in concert with all the right people. After all, LBJ heard those shots in Dallas, and even asked Hoover if any were aimed at him. (Exactly how many shots did he think "Oswald"might have fired, acquiring three targets - JFK, Connally, and LBJ - in the process?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i am with you Ron in believing the key link is Cuba. However, I have problems with the last paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that the original conspirators covered-up the evidence linking the assassination to Castro. The record shows that this was the work of LBJ, Hoover and Dulles. I am not convinced that these are the same people who organized the assassination. LBJ and Co covered up the assassination, not because they organized it because they did not like where a full-investigation of the assassination would go. If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba.

John,

My problem is with the near-universal referencing of "the conspirators" and/or "the original conspirators." The terms are all-encompassing, vague, and simplistic, and their endless applications are, in my opinion, ultimately detrimental to our shared efforts to discover truth and effect justice.

I don't have the temerity to suggest that the three-tiered conspiracy structure that I postulate has been demonstrated to be an accurate depiction of reality. But I maintain that, as we move the focus of our investigative efforts (on this forum, at least) from the established "how" (conspiracy) to the questions of "who" and "why," we must come to some concensus regarding the design of the plot.

At further risk of being labled a nitpicker (or a nit-something else, I fear), I offer this: In my informed (I can but hope) opinion, the same people conceived of and sponored the organization, or grand design, of the assassination and the broad contours of one of their vile, brilliant creation's most important components -- the cover-up.

We are in lockstep agreement that "LBJ and Co" directed the cover-up. We part company here: In my grand design hypothesis, however, they did not possess, singularly or in the agregate, either the power or the authority or the chutzpah to defy the conspiracy's prime movers -- for whom they labored, to whom they reported, and, like JFK, at whose pleasure they served.

Hence I most respectfully and utterly disagree with your statement, "If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba."

Instead: Since the same people conceived of the assassination in all of its elements, including the cover-up, ordered its facilitation, and possessed the power -- indelibly demonstrated in Dealey Plaza -- to eliminate opposition to their plans, the US invasion of Cuba could not and indeed did not take place, according to plan.

Either that, or "LBJ and Co" thumbed their collective nose at the forces that destroyed JFK, and as a result suffered not the slightest negative consequence.

Charles Drago

Charles, may I suggest another possibility?

Perhaps the assassination had two major sponsors with over-lapping but not

identical agendas.

One sponsor was driven by both a rabid right-wing ideology and deep, vested

business interests in both Cuba and the Far East. ("Deep" in the PD Scott sense,

that which is not meant to be uncovered.)

The other sponsor had deep, vested business interests all over the world,

especially in Cuba and the Far East.

In the months leading up to the assassination, the non-ideological sponsor

enjoys a series of favorable foreign policy outcomes that satisfy his deep,

vested interests, to the point that JFK's assassination was no longer necessary.

At that point -- say a mere 3 weeks before the assassination -- this non-ideological

sponsor does everything he can to warn JFK away from Dallas.

Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, pg 239:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

The truth according to [Democratic National Committee advance man]

Marty Underwood is that in the days immediately before Dallas, "We

were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be

assassinated in Dallas; there were no ifs, ands, or buts about it."

(quote off)

For the non-ideological sponsor, the JFK plot was merely a contingency plan,

useful only if JFK had not proven compliant with this sponsor's goals.

While this man had a great deal of power, he could not call the plot off himself,

as it had progressed beyond his ability to directly abort it; nor did he dare reveal

it directly to Kennedy, for fear of disclosing his own involvement.

Upon Oswald's capture this man had the power to pull the plug on the Castro-did-it

scenario and virtually ordered LBJ to cover it up.

Had Oswald been gunned down on 11/22 or had disappeared, this sponsor would

have gone along with the Castro-did-it scenario -- but it didn't happen. Given his

extensive business dealings with the Communist world, this man decided to cut his

losses and initiate the official "lone nut" cover-up within minutes of Oswald's capture.

He wouldn't get Cuba back in business (6-letter-word-starting-with-H), but he'd get

his way in Vietnam, which was going to happen if Kennedy had lived or not.

In the end, it was cooler feet, more than cooler heads, who prevailed.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff,

This last was a cogently argued hypothesis but with, alas, a fatal flaw:

"Perhaps the assassination had two major sponsors ..."

By definition, there had to be one and only one sponsorship group of singular purpose. Based upon an understanding of basic human nature and an appreciation of the peculiarities of the powerful, I submit that substantive conflict at the highest level of the plot simply never could have existed.

Now I fully accept that there were cross purposes among those who operated at what I term the "facilitator" level (including "false sponsors"). These conflicts, I'd say, were desireable to the true sponsors insofar as they contributed to the post-assassination cognitive dissonance experienced by honest investigators.

At the top: All of one mind.

Again, my hypothesis, one that I'm wholly prepared to rethink should the occasion arise.

Best,

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliff,

This last was a cogently argued hypothesis but with, alas, a fatal flaw:

"Perhaps the assassination had two major sponsors ..."

By definition, there had to be one and only one sponsorship group of singular purpose. Based upon an understanding of basic human nature and an appreciation of the peculiarities of the powerful, I submit that substantive conflict at the highest level of the plot simply never could have existed.

Not a "conflict," per se, but a divergence of interests based on events on the ground.

One party found a way to fulfill this admittedly singular purpose in such a way

as to leave the other party out in the cold, mayhaps...

Tycoon A agrees with Tycoon C that their similar-but-not-identical "deep" business

is suffering, and the best chance they have of re-invigorating it is killing JFK in such

a manner as they can blame Castro, thus establishing a pre-text for the military

re-acquisition of Cuba, as well as establishing more favorable US policies in the

Far East.

Tycoon A and Tycoon C collaborate on the plot, pulling all necessary strings to

put it into motion.

3 weeks before the assassination, JFK accedes to Tycoon A's agenda across the

board in regards to Cuba and Vietnam.

Tycoon A sits atop the world, while Tycoon C has been left out in the cold.

But Tycoon A can't stop Tycoon C from seeing the plot through, and although

both would have profited from a successful assassination (Castro-did-it), their

divergent interests played a definitive role in the nature of the "official" cover-up.

Tycoon C continued to press the Castro-did-it angle even after Oswald's capture,

while Tycoon A had more than enough pull to call that part of the plot off.

After all:

Somebody was behind the very-accurate rumors Underwood heard.

Somebody was behind the FBI teletype of 11/17/63 warning

of an assassination plot afoot in Dallas.

If reports of abort-teams being sent to Dallas are true, somebody with

a great deal of inside knowledge seems to have desired a different outcome.

Now I fully accept that there were cross purposes among those who operated at what I term the "facilitator" level (including "false sponsors"). These conflicts, I'd say, were desireable to the true sponsors insofar as they contributed to the post-assassination cognitive dissonance experienced by honest investigators.

At the top: All of one mind.

Again, my hypothesis, one that I'm wholly prepared to rethink should the occasion arise.

Best,

Charles

All of one mind at the top, indeed.

Unless and until one at the top sees an opportunity to "corner the market" sans the

others...as per my sig line...

Edited by Cliff Varnell

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

×
×
  • Create New...