Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

[David Andrews]

Just to say: No knock here at Mark Knight for reminding us of the Plumlee interview, which - like Plumlee's past posts on this Forum - are well worth study.

Edited July 18, 2017 by David Andrews

[Mark Knight]

I think Plumlee, like the late Gerry Patrick Hemming, may know more than he can reveal and continue living.

Might be as much information is what he refrains from saying as in the stuff he says.

[George Sawtelle]

The CIA does not work with units of agents. You won't see a group of agents sitting around a table in a room discussing an operation. Agents work alone their supervisor provides the resources, money, logistics, etc. other agents for the operation to succeed. Agent A won't know what Agent B is doing within the same operation. Their names aren't important. Information is passed out when anagent needs to know and not before.

The notion that a rogue unit within the agency without the knowledge of the bosses killed Kennedy is not logical. The rogue unit would need resources and logistics to do the job and a supervisor would sign off to release the resources to the rogue unit. A private source of resources would need assurances that the operation would succeed and that can only come from someone higher up in the agency. They would want someone to be responsible if the operation fails so that they can recover some of their investment.

The CIA would have too much to lose involving themselves in an operation to kill the president. If the operation fails an investigation may discover CIA involvement, even a hint of involvement, and the american public would require the new government to disband the CIA. Some in the CIA would be jailed or executed.

[David Andrews]

23 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

The CIA would have too much to lose involving themselves in an operation to kill the president. If the operation fails an investigation may discover CIA involvement, even a hint of involvement, and the american public would require the new government to disband the CIA. Some in the CIA would be jailed or executed.

As if.  We hold it self-evident that the back threads of this Forum offer ample evidence against, on all proposable grounds.

[Calvin Ye]

A month after death of the president, Harry Truman wrote a article suggesting CIA should be limited to intelligence gathering. Him writing this article is a clue that CIA was behind the death of the president.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Calvin Ye

[Richard Booth]

1 hour ago, Calvin Ye said:

A month after death of the president, Harry Truman wrote a article suggesting CIA should be limited to intelligence gathering. Him writing this article is a clue that CIA was behind the death of the president.

Hi Calvin,

That editorial would be published in the Washington Post on December 22, 1963. Truman began writing it a week after JFK was murdered. Additionally, none other than Allan Dulles visited with Truman in April of 1964, while he was on the Warren Commission, where he tried to get Truman to retract the editorial!  I think it's only a clue in the very vaguest sense of the word, but I do believe we can probably deduce that Truman probably had some suspicions!

I have a little bit of newfound respect for Truman after having read Summers' Official and Confidential, the biography of J. Edgar Hoover.

In addition to Truman's respectable op-ed against the agency, he took a moral stand against another reprehensible institution: respectably, Truman refused to participate in J. Edgar Hoover's illegal dirt-gathering and or to use Edgar's files to blackmail people for the President. Out of all the Presidents, only two found Edgar's methods repugnant and corrupt (which they were): JFK, and Truman.

As a result of Truman failing to conspire with Edgar or use his dirt, during Truman's tenure, Edgar was fearful for his position. Thus, Edgar exerted significant behind-the-scenes support for Thomas Dewey when he ran against Truman in '48 and provided Dewey with material from his files.  

Of course, Truman did decide to drop those two nuclear weapons on Japan which I believe was abominable and wrong. This just proves to me how flawed people are. Truman was on the right side against the CIA and in not cooperating with Edgar Hoover, but on a very wrong side in deciding to immolate two large civilian population centers.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Richard Booth

[Guest]

I am sure there was a thread not so long ago talking about Dulles efforts to get Truman to retract the anti-CIA article. 
I didn’t know about his adversion to Hoover’s techniques. Truman comes across as a bit of a simpleton in some of these war documentaries. He and LeMay seemed to celebrate the dropping of those nukes, grins all over their faces. i think Truman died broke, which probably indicates he was honest to some degree at least. 
 

As much as I like FDR, the USA had been selling Japan oil right up until 3 days before Pearl Harbour / The Attack on the Philippines, which it was using to run its war machine against the other allies. US interests also played the game with Hitler, trading which helped the poopoo rise and war effort. I just wonder if FDR felt he was in a precarious situation after that near coup in 1933 (bankers plot). He was on good terms with Stalin. The second FDR dies, the Cold War Starts with Truman. 

[Calvin Ye]

7 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am sure there was a thread not so long ago talking about Dulles efforts to get Truman to retract the anti-CIA article. 
I didn’t know about his adversion to Hoover’s techniques. Truman comes across as a bit of a simpleton in some of these war documentaries. He and LeMay seemed to celebrate the dropping of those nukes, grins all over their faces. i think Truman died broke, which probably indicates he was honest to some degree at least. 
 

As much as I like FDR, the USA had been selling Japan oil right up until 3 days before Pearl Harbour / The Attack on the Philippines, which it was using to run its war machine against the other allies. US interests also played the game with Hitler, trading which helped the poopoo rise and war effort. I just wonder if FDR felt he was in a precarious situation after that near coup in 1933 (bankers plot). He was on good terms with Stalin. The second FDR dies, the Cold War Starts with Truman. 

According to Anonty Sutton's research, the bankers were influential in the rise of Stalin

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Calvin Ye said:

According to Anonty Sutton's research, the bankers were influential in the rise of Stalin

It wouldn’t surprise me at all, Calvin. War is the most profitable racket for the few. 

[Calvin Ye]

12 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

Hi Calvin,

That editorial would be published in the Washington Post on December 22, 1963. Truman began writing it a week after JFK was murdered. Additionally, none other than Allan Dulles visited with Truman in April of 1964, while he was on the Warren Commission, where he tried to get Truman to retract the editorial!  I think it's only a clue in the very vaguest sense of the word, but I do believe we can probably deduce that Truman probably had some suspicions!

I have a little bit of newfound respect for Truman after having read Summers' Official and Confidential, the biography of J. Edgar Hoover.

In addition to Truman's respectable op-ed against the agency, he took a moral stand against another reprehensible institution: respectably, Truman refused to participate in J. Edgar Hoover's illegal dirt-gathering and or to use Edgar's files to blackmail people for the President. Out of all the Presidents, only two found Edgar's methods repugnant and corrupt (which they were): JFK, and Truman.

As a result of Truman failing to conspire with Edgar or use his dirt, during Truman's tenure, Edgar was fearful for his position. Thus, Edgar exerted significant behind-the-scenes support for Thomas Dewey when he ran against Truman in '48 and provided Dewey with material from his files.  

Of course, Truman did decide to drop those two nuclear weapons on Japan which I believe was abominable and wrong. This just proves to me how flawed people are. Truman was on the right side against the CIA and in not cooperating with Edgar Hoover, but on a very wrong side in deciding to immolate two large civilian population centers.

Truman made an mistake of getting Eisenhower involved in politics.

[Richard Booth]

On 4/20/2021 at 10:03 PM, Chris Barnard said:

I am sure there was a thread not so long ago talking about Dulles efforts to get Truman to retract the anti-CIA article. 
I didn’t know about his adversion to Hoover’s techniques. Truman comes across as a bit of a simpleton in some of these war documentaries. He and LeMay seemed to celebrate the dropping of those nukes, grins all over their faces. i think Truman died broke, which probably indicates he was honest to some degree at least. 
 

As much as I like FDR, the USA had been selling Japan oil right up until 3 days before Pearl Harbour / The Attack on the Philippines, which it was using to run its war machine against the other allies. US interests also played the game with Hitler, trading which helped the poopoo rise and war effort. I just wonder if FDR felt he was in a precarious situation after that near coup in 1933 (bankers plot). He was on good terms with Stalin. The second FDR dies, the Cold War Starts with Truman. 

Based on what is in Summers' book, Truman seemed to be revolted by J. Edgar Hoover bringing nasty sex stuff and dirt to him. There was a quote something along the lines of "get that crap out of here!"

I think he was "more honest" than most, but that he lacked some level of introspection or enlightenment. Not a simpleton, but not very deep either. 

[Ron Bulman]

 

[Ron Bulman]

29 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

Based on what is in Summers' book, Truman seemed to be revolted by J. Edgar Hoover bringing nasty sex stuff and dirt to him. There was a quote something along the lines of "get that crap out of here!"

I think he was "more honest" than most, but that he lacked some level of introspection or enlightenment. Not a simpleton, but not very deep either. 

Naive enough to be taken advantage of by those less scrupulous. 

[Richard Booth]

2 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Naive enough to be taken advantage of by those less scrupulous. 

Possibly he was, I haven't read enough about him to get a good feel for what kind of person he was other than he seemed to strongly dislike J. Edgar Hoover. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

Based on what is in Summers' book, Truman seemed to be revolted by J. Edgar Hoover bringing nasty sex stuff and dirt to him. There was a quote something along the lines of "get that crap out of here!"

I think he was "more honest" than most, but that he lacked some level of introspection or enlightenment. Not a simpleton, but not very deep either. 

Thanks Richard, for correcting my poor choice of words, he has ascended to the highest office in the land, he deserves some credit. I think shallow or not very deep, or naive in some ways, is more accurate, he clearly was not very introspective in regard to his persona and reaction concerning the dropping of the nukes. Him being appalled by Hoovers surreptitious antics  does suggest he had a sense if right and wrong or a moral compass. Is it possible he’d been on the end of that kind of thing at any stage?

Edited April 25, 2021 by Chris Barnard