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
George Sawtelle

Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Paul - I look at the word rogue as equivalent to the word unauthorized and concomitant to the concept punishable.  And didn't nobody get punished for Dealey.  Only for being in position to talk about it.

Was the "rogue op" sanctioned afterward, since Jack couldn't be brought back?  Or did it always exist above the possibility of sanction.  That is, upon the level of the paradiso named Denial.  ("I'm not privy to who struck John," pointedly dispensed at a certain career-closing backyard news conference in Arlington.)

"Rogue" by this definition equals "Carried out at the highest levels of Company operations."

David,

The reason that the rogues did not get punished was because of the Cold War. 

J. Edgar Hoover came up with this idea of the LN Oswald first, and LBJ approved it quickly (says Professor David Wrone).   The Truth was that the US Radical Right had killed JFK --  precisely through all these rogues in the Dallas Police, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, retired Military, and so on.

However, the Truth could never be admitted for 75 years because of the Cold War.   This adequately explains why the rogues weren't punished (in public).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

Who had the power to place a brigade of troops on standby over Wash DC in case of rioting as per Prouty?

\

Why, the military of course. Do you draw a hard line between CIA and Military Intelligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul B

The military and the CIA competed for the same resources. The CIA  had begun to undertake overt military operations without the help and consent of the military (Bay of Pigs). The military had begun to develop a dislike for the CIA for muscling in on their territory.

I doubt the military would expect any plan developed by the CIA would succeed `after their disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco. They wouldn't be a part of anything created by the CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

Who had the power to place a brigade of troops on standby over Wash DC in case of rioting as per Prouty?

George,

It is more likely that Prouty misunderstood the action -- he was very quick to accuse General Lansdale of participation in the JFK assassination.   

Not everybody agrees with Fletcher Prouty.  I offer Larry Hancock as only one stellar example.

There was an accusation that I read once -- that the US Military had rehearsed the funeral of JFK a week before the assassination.  That turned out to be a rehearsal for a funeral of another US Government official.   But the rumors fly.

We must learn to more sharply distinguish facts from rumors.  Otherwise, the rumors take over -- as we saw in Probe Magazine (1990's).  Also, the whole CT literature about an alleged coup-de-etat with the JFK assassination -- this is all exaggeration and melodrama.  There was no coup.  

Also, if you want to make statements about the power of the CIA relative to the US Military, then please read more books by Larry Hancock, who is an expert in such issues -- and don't just guess at it.

There is a web site called, "Counter-Coup" which features such JFK rumors.  It's part of what drags down honest researchers.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul  T

You don't believe Prouty.

Apparently his disclosure about a military unit on standby has no place in your theory. No problem.

However save your lecture on what I should read and what I should believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 10:29 AM, Paul Trejo said:

David,

The reason that the rogues did not get punished was because of the Cold War. 

J. Edgar Hoover came up with this idea of the LN Oswald first, and LBJ approved it quickly (says Professor David Wrone).   The Truth was that the US Radical Right had killed JFK --  precisely through all these rogues in the Dallas Police, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, retired Military, and so on.

However, the Truth could never be admitted for 75 years because of the Cold War.   This adequately explains why the rogues weren't punished (in public).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Yet no one was punished in private.  Nobody extinguished Morales, Giancana, Roselli, or anybody complicit or having guilty knowledge until the mid-1970s, when they might have talked before HSCA or other threatened committees.  Dick Helms went to the top of the Company.  Phillips "retired" and didn't starve.  Angleton only fell because the molehunt put too many crimps in the organization.  Hunt went on to become a pawn in the Company's war on Nixon, and if his wife got it over that, it probably wasn't Company.  To paraphrase: Nobody hollered treason and the treasonous prospered.

Look low: Ferry, Del Valle, and others (Shaw?) bought it over Garrison.  Look high: Harriman, Lodge, Bundy, Michael Forrestal - nobody working for the White House went down at all.

And why didn't anyone at CIA, or at any other intel agency, or anyone in political life, punish the far right for having the temerity to take out a sitting president, even one they all were glad to be rid of?  It's because the far right was only one set of players allowed to operate in the assassination climate, just as there were multiple factions fostered for the attempt to get Castro.  

The grassroots American "far right" - even down to the small-town stupids who elected Trump and stand by him through every error - has always been disposable, easily made culpable, and eventually forgettable.  The same DPD that lionized Edwin Walker in 1963 wouldn't let him skate on morals charges in 1977.     

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Yet no one was punished in private.  Nobody extinguished Morales, Giancana, Roselli, or anybody complicit or having guilty knowledge until the mid-1970s, when they might have talked before HSCA or other threatened committees.  Dick Helms went to the top of the Company.  Phillips "retired" and didn't starve.  Angleton only fell because the molehunt put too many crimps in the organization.  Hunt went on to become a pawn in the Company's war on Nixon, and if his wife got it over that, it probably wasn't Company.  To paraphrase: Nobody hollered treason and the treasonous prospered.

Look low: Ferry, Del Valle, and others (Shaw?) bought it over Garrison.  Look high: Harriman, Lodge, Bundy, Michael Forrestal - nobody working for the White House went down at all.

And why didn't anyone at CIA, or at any other intel agency, or anyone in political life, punish the far right for having the temerity to take out a sitting president, even one they all were glad to be rid of?  It's because the far right was only one set of players allowed to operate in the assassination climate, just as there were multiple factions fostered for the attempt to get Castro.  

The grassroots American "far right" - even down to the small-town stupids who elected Trump and stand by him through every error - has always been disposable, easily made culpable, and eventually forgettable.  The same DPD that lionized Edwin Walker in 1963 wouldn't let him skate on morals charges in 1977.     

David,

No one was punished.

That must confirm it, then.

--  Tommy :sun

PS  As regards who killed JFK, I'm looking neither high nor low, but probably somewhere in the middle.

Oh yeah, and the Ruskies, too, as in ---   also.

And I'm looking really high there.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy,

I'm arguing against Trejo's point.  I never expected anyone guilty to be whacked, fired, or prosecuted for the assassination.

In comparison, there was a much greater and more aggressive search for conspiracy when Lincoln bought it at the end of a hot war.  And not everybody revered him while he was alive, either.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul T

pg 42 "Destiny Betrayed" James DiEugenio

One of the most interesting aspects of the Taylor Commission report is the testimony of Allen Dulles. Dulles understood that his job and career were on the line. Therefore his answers to difficult questions were evasive. When Admiral Arleigh Burke asked him if the responsibility for the conduct of the operation was not all at CIA, the following dialogue appeared,

Dulles But that was done by military personnel.

Burke But not under our command structure.

General Lyman Lymnitzer, chair of the Joint Chiefs at the time, also scored Dulles on this point. When asked if he "or the Joints Chiefs were the defenders of the military aspects of the operation, or was it the CIA?" Lymnitzer replied that "The defenders of the military parts of the plan were the people who produced it and that was the CIA. We were providing assistance and assuring the feasibility of the plan."

And just what did the military advise the CIA on the operation. Well it can be summed up with the following,

pg 295 "The Brothers" Stephen Kinzer

At the next Special Group meeting, on December 28, discussion turned to military requirements for the exile invasion. This time Allen deferred not to Bissell, but to Colonel Jack Hawkins, a Marine Corps amphibious warfare expert who had been detailed to organize the landing. Hawkins was forceful - and chillingly prophetic.

"It is axiomatic in amphibious operations that control of air and sea in the objective area is required", he said. "The Cuban airforce and naval vessels capable of opposing our landing must be knocked out or neutralized before our amphibious shipping makes a final run at the beach. If this is not done, we will be courting disaster ... The operation [should] be abandoned if policy does not provide for use of adequate tactical air support."

It definitely seems like the military and the CIA were not on the same page. In fact I would say the military threw the CIA under the bus. Relations between the two were not good.

What are your thoughts Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you were addressing Paul T., but I would like to respond. To me you have not proved that there was enmity between the JCS and CIA. I'm not really arguing against your suggestion that the assassination was military. JFK was afraid of just that. But Lemnitzer or Dulles passing the buck during an official inquiry isn't proof. I generally think Andrews has it right, and it's not so different than your theory, except for the fact that he doesn't attempt to parse the differences between one group of powerful haters and another. The SILENCE that follows that moment, in which disparate groups coalesce in covering up or properly investigating the crime proves this point. If it wasn't a lone assassin, which I think nearly all of us agree on, a smaller group of conspirators, such as mafia, or rogue CIA, or ex-military, or JBS Minutemen, or Dallas oil and defense, could not have succeeded after the fact in keeping their secret and avoiding punishment. There was no civil or nuclear war that was prevented by wiser heads who decided in the public interest to 'convict' Oswald and move on. All myth to coverup the awful truth that the murder and coverup were acts of STATE, perpetrated by our self appointed ruling class to protect their own interests, which they call the 'national interest'. 

Edited by Paul Brancato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul B

That is not what I'm suggesting. I never have said the military played a primary role in the assassination. They were not the leaders. They did what they were told as always.

My entire point is that the military would not blindly follow the CIA. I don't believe they trusted the CIA and thus would not undertake an operation to work hand and hand with the CIA unless they were told to do so.

Edited by George Sawtelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T

pg 42 "Destiny Betrayed" James DiEugenio

One of the most interesting aspects of the Taylor Commission report is the testimony of Allen Dulles. Dulles understood that his job and career were on the line. Therefore his answers to difficult questions were evasive. When Admiral Arleigh Burke asked him if the responsibility for the conduct of the operation was not all at CIA, the following dialogue appeared,

Dulles But that was done by military personnel.

Burke But not under our command structure.

General Lyman Lymnitzer, chair of the Joint Chiefs at the time, also scored Dulles on this point. When asked if he "or the Joints Chiefs were the defenders of the military aspects of the operation, or was it the CIA?" Lymnitzer replied that "The defenders of the military parts of the plan were the people who produced it and that was the CIA. We were providing assistance and assuring the feasibility of the plan."

And just what did the military advise the CIA on the operation. Well it can be summed up with the following,

pg 295 "The Brothers" Stephen Kinzer

At the next Special Group meeting, on December 28, discussion turned to military requirements for the exile invasion. This time Allen deferred not to Bissell, but to Colonel Jack Hawkins, a Marine Corps amphibious warfare expert who had been detailed to organize the landing. Hawkins was forceful - and chillingly prophetic.

"It is axiomatic in amphibious operations that control of air and sea in the objective area is required", he said. "The Cuban airforce and naval vessels capable of opposing our landing must be knocked out or neutralized before our amphibious shipping makes a final run at the beach. If this is not done, we will be courting disaster ... The operation [should] be abandoned if policy does not provide for use of adequate tactical air support."

It definitely seems like the military and the CIA were not on the same page. In fact I would say the military threw the CIA under the bus. Relations between the two were not good.

What are your thoughts Paul?

George,

I don't take James DiEugenio as an authority today.  IMHO James has extended the 1968 arguments of Jim Garrison as far as they can go -- but no further; his work is repetitive.

The attacks by James DiEugenio upon the CIA in general, and upon Allen Dulles in particular are based on guesswork, innuendo, rumor and imagination.

The CIA did not kill JFK.  The Pentagon did not kill JFK.   There was no coup-de-etat in the USA.  Such thinking is beyond CT, it is almost paranoid.

The solution to the JFK assassination has one and only one solution -- and the solution has nothing to do with guesswork or imagination.

The fact that JFK had many enemies in the CIA and in the Pentagon proves NOTHING AT ALL.   People can hate without being murderers.

There is no smoking gun discovered in the works of James DiEugenio.  In desperation James also attacks Quaker charity lady Ruth Paine, accusing her of CIA membership and plotting against JFK.  What nonsense.

If you want my recognition for an argument, George, please select a better source.   James DiEugenio's Probe Magazine (1990's) was a big failure.  David Lifton also rejects James DiEugenio's conclusions; I'm not a lone wolf here.

Here is a source that I find very solid -- former FBI agent Don Adams, who investigated Willie Somerset, informant against ultra-right-wing Joseph Milteer, in his book, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle (2012).  The solution to the JFK assassination starts there -- with the US Radical Right.  Not the CIA.  Not Allen Dulles.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2017 at 10:44 AM, David Andrews said:

Yet no one was punished in private.  Nobody extinguished Morales, Giancana, Roselli, or anybody complicit or having guilty knowledge until the mid-1970s, when they might have talked before HSCA or other threatened committees.  Dick Helms went to the top of the Company.  Phillips "retired" and didn't starve.  Angleton only fell because the molehunt put too many crimps in the organization.  Hunt went on to become a pawn in the Company's war on Nixon, and if his wife got it over that, it probably wasn't Company.  To paraphrase: Nobody hollered treason and the treasonous prospered.

Look low: Ferry, Del Valle, and others (Shaw?) bought it over Garrison.  Look high: Harriman, Lodge, Bundy, Michael Forrestal - nobody working for the White House went down at all.

And why didn't anyone at CIA, or at any other intel agency, or anyone in political life, punish the far right for having the temerity to take out a sitting president, even one they all were glad to be rid of?  It's because the far right was only one set of players allowed to operate in the assassination climate, just as there were multiple factions fostered for the attempt to get Castro.  

The grassroots American "far right" - even down to the small-town stupids who elected Trump and stand by him through every error - has always been disposable, easily made culpable, and eventually forgettable.  The same DPD that lionized Edwin Walker in 1963 wouldn't let him skate on morals charges in 1977.     

David,

Let's go a little slower, please.   I don't name Giancana or Roselli as JFK plotters -- although they most likely heard rumors through a live grape-vine, i.e. they knew what was going on to a large degree.  But they weren't inside the inner circle.  The inner circle was in Dallas -- not Miami.

Also, I don't name Richard Helms as a JFK plotter.  He was clueless, IMHO.  The same applies to David Atlee Phillips -- I accept his quasi-confession in his unpublished novel, The AMLASH Legacy (1988) as real and true history -- that's my personal opinion.   DAP was clueless.

Also, I don't name James Jesus Angleton, because he started the Simpich Mole Hunt on October 1, 1963, trying to find out which CIA agent had impersonated Oswald in Mexico City.  Again -- clueless.

As for E. Howard Hunt, I must name him as a conspirator, because he confessed on his deathbed to his son, and I accept that confession.  Yet it is open to interpretation, because he used diagrams instead of words in places.  In any case, Hunt said he was "on the sidelines," and he reluctantly accepted the invitation of Frank Sturgis as forwarded from David Morales.  I accept that Hunt was "on the sidelines," aside from handing some money over to some gun-runners.  He was dogged by Mark Lane for the rest of his life -- which is a form of punishment.

Frank Sturgis allegedly confessed and even boasted about his role in the JFK assassination.  He was later jailed for his role in Watergate.

As for David Morales -- he also confessed to his pal, Ruben Carbajal.  He lived out his life as a drunkard -- paranoid of everybody.  He had betrayed his own Company and leaders, and he lived out his life in guilt -- a special kind of prison for any man of honor.

Yet none of those men were at the center of the cyclone -- namely -- in Dallas.  The center, IMHO, was Ex-General Edwin Walker, the only US General to resign in the 20th century, in 1961, spurning his 30-year US Army pension.  Walker resigned because he regarded the Pentagon as "Communist-influenced," which was the standard creed of the John Birch Society.

For his role in the Ole Miss racial riots, General Walker had been sent to an insane asylum by JFK and RFK on October 1, 1962, but was released three days later by the ACLU and others.  In January, 1963, General Walker was acquitted by a Grand Jury, and went about suing all those AP newspapers who printed the truth about him -- that he was the leader of the Ole Miss racial riots.

Walker lost 9 out of 10 of those cases, but the few he won gave him more than $3 million in court winnings by 1966.  What was his punishment, IMHO, for his role in the JFK assassination?  When the AP appealed to the Supreme Court, Walker's case was heard by none other than Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Earl Warren found for AP, and sent General Walker home empty-handed.  Penniless, Walker had no choice but to beg for his Army pension to be "restored."  Walker had to wait another 16 years for it -- Walker finally got his Army pension in 1982.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

...If it wasn't a lone assassin, which I think nearly all of us agree on, a smaller group of conspirators, such as mafia, or rogue CIA, or ex-military, or JBS Minutemen, or Dallas oil and defense, could not have succeeded after the fact in keeping their secret and avoiding punishment.

There was no civil or nuclear war that was prevented by wiser heads who decided in the public interest to 'convict' Oswald and move on. All myth to coverup the awful truth that the murder and coverup were acts of STATE, perpetrated by our self appointed ruling class to protect their own interests, which they call the 'national interest'. 

Paul B.,

Your CT there neglects the real possibility that the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were two different groups, with opposing purposes.

It is certainly true that the JFK Kill Team could not have controlled the US Government Cover-up.  They didn't expect to get caught.  They put their lives on the line for what they believed, namely, that JFK was a Communist.  They killed JFK and tried to blame the Communists.  

If they would have been caught in normal times, they would have all faced a firing squad.  However, these weren't normal times.  This was the COLD WAR.

The JFK Kill Team continually tried to argue that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist.  Even in the pages of the Warren Commission, we hear them (starting with General Walker, going through Robert Alan Surrey, Revilo P. Oliver and Bernard Weissman, to name a few) blabbering on about Oswald being part of a Communist plot to kill JFK.

But the Warren Commission considered them to be "nuts" just as they considered Oswald to be a "nut."

It was one of the strangest facts of US History -- but the JFK killers got away with it -- to a point.  Yet what they really wanted was to spur the invasion of Cuba.  THAT WAS DENIED TO THEM.

Ultimately, the JFK Killers got lots of NOTHING.  They all crawled back into the holes from which they came -- shame-faced to the world for the rest of their lives.

The JFK Cover-up was clearly an act of STATE.  However, the JFK assassination was caused solely and only by the US Radical Right.   Big difference.  

(As evidence I propose the recent book by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

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

×