The Most Difficult Assasination

[Jools Gallagher]

In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination, it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death.

Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation.

Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro). As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?

[John Simkin]

Very good question.

In his book, The Last Investigation, Gaeton Fonzi describes a meeting with Vincent Salandria. Immediately after the publication of the Warren Commission Report, Salandria wrote a powerful critique of it for The Legal Intelligencer. This article had a deep impact on Fonzi. However, although Fonzi continued to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Salandria seemed to lose interest in the case.

When Fonzi met Salandria he asked him why he lost his passion to discover who was behind the assassination of JFK. Salandria replied:

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

I believe this statement contains a profound truth – the people behind the assassination wanted the American public to believe there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy: As Salandria points out: “The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message."

[Antti Hynonen]

Jools Gallagher Posted Today, 07:26 AM

  In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination, it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death.

Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation.

Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro). As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?

In my opinion:

The conspirators took a huge risk in this operation. It succeeded because there must have been a number of key individuals both in Dallas and Washington who had foreknowledge of the events which were taking place. The cover-up was successful for many years.

Many of the people involved in the planning eliminated key figures behind the shooting, the getaway, witnesses etc. Starting with Lee H. Oswald.

Sure it was a difficult and risky assassination, however, the true perpetrators have not been detained, nor has a proper investigation been conducted (one main excuse for not investigating being National Security).

[Martin Shackelford]

In reading recent posts about the suspicious deaths involving members of the CIA, (William Colby), and various other witnesses to the events of the JFK assassination,  it seems that the powers that be are more than capable of orchestrating hits on people and making it look like an accident, or some other kind of plausible, albeit untimely death.

Why is it then that the assassination of JFK occurred in such an open forum, with masses of potential for it to go wrong, requiring an enormous cover up that could leave the USA government embarrassed for decades if exposed. This leading to the potential of multiple hits on witnesses who may know anything about the operation.

Why was it not done as boat accident, a plane fault, poisoned pills even, (for which the idea was suggested for Castro).  As I've read - there are so many better options to assassinate JFK, why would the conspirators, if they were members of such high society, opt for the most difficult assassination option?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hard to determine the motive without knowing who the conspirators were, as the motives could vary widely. One person who seemed to have no motive, having spoken only favorably of JFK, was Lee Oswald.

Martin Shackelford

[Jools Gallagher]

Thank you for your responses. I still don't feel satisfied though.

If the conspirators or "the forces of power" wanted to make a public statement, to send out a message saying - we have the power, connections and audacity to publicly execute the president of the United States and we can get away with it! Who was this message to? The public, the government, rival organisations? If it is the public - then remaining anonymous and not claiming the murder would not serve much purpose. Usually an act of terrorism if it is pre-meditated and carried out by a group - will be claimed, sending a message to everyone that they are serious and they can get to you - a boost for their cause whatever. Covering up the event so that no-one knows who is responsible, what message does this send?

If it was a message to the government, a - we can get to you - situation, then why wouldn’t the government have made more effort to find and expel these conspirators and protect their seat of power?

Gangland or organised crime messages are common also - let your rivals know you mean business - send out the message.

So saying the "forces of power were sending out a message" of course is true in many respects, it was a horrific murder, a public execution - it disposed of a president. But to take such a terrific risk, the headshot was not a sure thing, there was so much scope for it to backfire, why choose the assassination this way?

The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' Who was this message being sent to? - And how can they benefit from this message if the "we" remain anonymous?

The many political/Cuba/Mafia/Cold War motives for the assassination would surely be achieved by the removal of Kennedy, but a subtler, slicker, more calculated assassination with less scope for error would have achieved this also. Why take the risk??????

[Ron Ecker]

I don't believe there was any message being sent in the assassination. Like many other researchers, I believe that the intent was, first, to get rid of JFK and, second, to blame it on Castro, thus prompting an invasion of Cuba. So it was done military-ambush style the way Castro agents would have to do it. If JFK simply died of poisoned food, for example, how could that be blamed on Castro? So it was done ambush style with multiple shooters. Blaming it on one gunman was not in the plan, it was supposed to look like an ambush, so they fired as often as needed. Oswald was still to be a patsy, but only as one shooter among several, and the one they would use the trace the hit team back to Castro. But when something went wrong and Oswald was arrested before he could be taken out of the country, supposedly on his way to Cuba, and eliminated, they basically panicked and blamed the whole thing on him, promptly having him shot. And LBJ subsequently showed little interest in Cuba, turning his attention instead to the Vietnam problem.

[Jools Gallagher]

Thank you Ron, a very decent and plausible answer - I can buy into that, it certainty seems logical.

Still leaves a few niggles in my understanding though. Oswald was set up as a patsy, but as you say when then plan to get him to Cuba failed - he was eliminated. Ruby shot Oswald in broad daylight, in public - knowing he we going to be caught, and sentenced to prison or worse. Therefore making Ruby part of the operation - as a hit man on Oswald so that he couldn't talk and reveal any info about his knowledge of the conspiracy. This I understand. However, if Ruby was willing to risk all and sacrifice his own life, or at least the quality of his future life in order to silence Oswald for his cause - then why wasn't the assassination itself carried out by a similar individual who would simply walk up as close as he could to the president and shoot until he hit - not caring if he got caught or shot, (like Ruby). Why the multiple gunmen, the cover up. This could have all been avoided. If the plan was to ensure that the shooter could be traced back to Castro - in order to invoke a Cuban invasion - then surely a fanatical pro-Castro individual could have been found or persuaded to perform this operation, in much the same was as fanatical Isamics are prepared to sacrifice everything for their cause today.

The point of starting this whole topic was to help my understanding of why Dealy Plaza, why massive cover up, why allow all this room for error. I believe strongly in the conspiracy - but it just leaves so many gaps. If you consider the means and intelligence of the individuals involved - then you can guess that there must have been a better way to carry this out. You want to invoke a Cuban invasion, the killing of the president by someone with strong Castro - Communist ties would justify this, then I'm sure the collective minds of this operation could have achieved the desired result with a better thought out operation. The whole thing just seems sloppy. Touching up of photos, doctoring of autopsy photos, film footage altered, witnesses killed, government embarrassment. It just all seems so rough around the edges.

This is what I can't understand about the whole thing.

[John Simkin]

Thank you Ron, a very decent and plausible answer - I can buy into that, it certainty seems logical. 

Still leaves a few niggles in my understanding though.  Oswald was set up as a patsy, but as you say when then plan to get him to Cuba failed - he was eliminated.  Ruby shot Oswald in broad daylight, in public - knowing he we going to be caught, and sentenced to prison or worse.  Therefore making Ruby part of the operation - as a hit man on Oswald so that he couldn't talk and reveal any info about his knowledge of the conspiracy. 

It has to be remembered that the original plan was to blame Castro's supporters for the assassination. This would have been reinforced by their appearance in Cuba (I do not believe Oswald was the only one being set up as a patsy). However, it was not the plan for Oswald or the other conspirators to be arrested alive. Once Oswald was killed it would have been possible for the assassination of JFK still to have been blamed on Castro. The problem was that LBJ would not go along with this and insisted on the “lone gunman theory”. This stopped the main objective taking place: an invasion of Cuba and the removal of Castro. I have attempted to explain why LBJ overruled Hoover and CIA on this here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1909

I also plan to go into this problem in more detail in my online seminar: LBJ and the Assassination of JFK

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1891

[Shanet Clark]

Jools, I think the Salandria statement is a very powerful answer to your reasonable question. In the world of covert operations and counter-intelligence, black is white, white is black, and the grey is a many-coloured thing. You do what the other side would do and then blame them for it, etc.

Motivation and "why would..." questions go too far behind the evidence... The very complexity and number of questions serves some larger purpose...which is again hidden, or occluded.

John Simkin asked me to address your question, but I have little to say beyond the Salandria statement.

Why would Bush go to war to find WMD's that weren't there?

Why would Nixon continue to fight in Vietnam until 1975?

Why do rebels and troops in Sierra Leone chop off civilians hands?

Evidently the use of force and power has a bloody motivation all its own, invisible to both rational and peaceful people...

Shanet Clark,

Hearst/Senate Scholar, and Woodruff Fellow of History, GSU Atlanta

[Peter McGuire]

For those of you who are looking at the big picture and see that the "why" part is indeed the most difficult one to answer, I can only say you are on the right track. But there are so many reasons why Kennedy could have been killed, so that question may never be answered.

What we need to get out of this question, and the events of that day is, at the very least, the fact that it DID happen; that is, there was an operation to kill our own President, complete with a fall guy and a plan to cover it up.

The plan worked very well , with a surprising number of people actually still believing in the cover story to this day. Many more cling to the notion Oswald had to be involved and was one of the shooters. But what most people can not cope with is the reality of the public and brutal nature of the operation. And the fact that his own men turned on him and allowed him to die.

PM

[Robert Howard]

For those of you who are looking at the big picture and see that the "why" part is indeed the most difficult one to answer, I can only say you are on the right track. But there are so many reasons why Kennedy could have been killed, so that question may never be answered.

What we need to get out of this question, and the events of that day is, at the very least, the fact that it DID happen; that is, there was an operation to kill our own President, complete with a fall guy and a plan to cover it up.

The plan worked very well , with a surprising number of people actually still believing in the cover story to this day. Many more cling to the notion Oswald had to be involved and was one of the shooters. But what most people can not cope with is the reality of the public and brutal nature of the operation. And the fact that his own men turned on him and allowed him to die.

PM

A very esteemed JFK Researcher some time ago told me that there are many leads on the assassination that exists to this day, my own research confirms this. The fact that there is so much about the assassination that is known yet still shrouded in mystery, is due to the fact that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence regarding how the assassination was carried out, but yet big chunks of key areas still uncertain, the essential information about Oswald, the essence of his relationship with Jack Ruby and the missing pieces which remain to be resolved in relation to:

1. Oswald - Ruby - Ferrie: and their inteconnections with the:

2. US government, Left/Right Wing Groups in Dallas, the Dallas Infrastructure,

and more specifically groups & individuals such as:

3. Ruth/Michael Paine, George Demohrenschildt, Edwin Walker & the Dallas Police Dept., FBI, CIA and 112th M.I., the mob in Dallas/Miami/Chicago and elsewhere.

The window of opportunity for everything to come out re 11/22/63 has come & gone several times, in a baseball game the analogy would be, at this late stage, those resolved to keeping the door shut are rounding third and headed to home plate.

If I attempted to answer the question beginning this thread my answer would be 'black ops.' November 22, 1963 was not just a black op, but was sanctioned, to some degree at the very top of the apparatus of government, if someone is really interested in pursuing the latter comment read the ARRB Report concerning key documents destroyed relatively close to the period after the assassination.

The ultimate irony is in how the cover-up of it all has in the year 2006 allowed the defenders of the Warren Commission [an investigation that in 1978 the American people knew beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a sham] to re-create a history of mythos and allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to join the Forum and make fun of 'conspiracy theorists.' In that context, it can be argued that, the inmates are not running the asylum, they are running [another baseball analogy] the Show.

Edited August 12, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Don Jeffries]

Vincent Salandria once wrote that he now believed that the plotters purposefully left obvious evidence of conspiracy in the record. Why would they do that? Well, maybe for nothing more than to amuse themselves. Certainly, they could have come up with a more believeable scenario than the single-bullet theory, and they obvously could have planted a bullet that was more damaged than CE399. Is this why the Warren Commission interviewed completely irrelevant witnesses like Viola Peterman, who hadn't seen Oswald since he was an infant? Is this why they included all those ridiculous exhibits in the record, which critics like Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher exposed so thoroughly? Is this why they didn't interview crucial witnesses like Admiral Burkley? Is this why they chose such an old, unreliable mannlicher carcano as the "official" murder weapon? Is this why they had the alleged assassin tied to anti-Castro groups, pro-Castro groups, the FBI and the CIA?

Sophisticated and powerful people would not have conducted such a sloppy and transparent coverup. Personally, I think that those who misrule us just like to toy with us, and prove to themselves how stupid and gullible we are. For instance, a few years back, an obviously orchestrated media campaign to portray veteran hack Republican party Senator John McCain as a "maverick" and a "reformer" was instituted. When talking heads like Tim Russert say McCain's name, it is with a reverance reserved for few mortal figures. You couldn't find a politician in the Senate who was less maverick or reform-minded than McCain, who built his whole political career on being a POW, left his loyal first wife to marry a much younger beer heiress, and was a member of the Keating Five. I think that they picked him for his new role precisely because it was so obvious that he wasn't what they were claiming him to be, just as the conspirators who killed JFK have their apologists in the government and the media defending transparent lies and impossibilities. It could be their demented way of having fun.