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
Paul Trejo

Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

Recommended Posts

Wasn't Plausible Denial the cool thing of the time? It would make sense if a government agency outsourced a plot, which they had been doing with their plots to take out Castro, and used it to assassinate the president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

Wasn't Plausible Denial the cool thing of the time? It would make sense if a government agency outsourced a plot, which they had been doing with their plots to take out Castro, and used it to assassinate the president. 

Jeffrey,

Yes, Mark Lane's Plausible Denial (1991) was a tremendous boon for the CIA-did-it theory.   E. Howard Hunt had to bow in court before Mark Lane and his prime witness, Marita Lorenz.   The court refused to believe his alibi -- so full of holes -- when he denied Marita Lorenz's account of his whereabouts on a given date in 1963.

Later however, in 2007, E. Howard Hunt left a full deathbed confession to his son, S. John Hunt, that he had a minor role in the JFK Assassination, tempted to join David Morales by freelance fanatic Frank Sturgis.  

Even if we interpret Marita Lorenz literally, then being a payroll bagman for a JFK Assassination plot -- this does amount to a minor role.   That is, he was not in Dealey Plaza as a shooter -- he was a bagman in Miami.

So, actually one cannot claim a CIA-did-it plot based on this.  One can just as easily claim a civilian plot, in which a couple of CIA rogues involved in Kill-Fidel plans, joined them.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The latest and most absolute reason that the Trejo theory is wrong just occurred to me. 

It has been my working assumption that JFK absolutely had to die in Dallas that day; and therefore there were increasingly reckless plans A, B and C in place. Paul's plot and his perps could not have afforded a messy, reckless, desperate fall-back to a plan C or D with bombs or very heavy automatic large caliber guns being brought to bear on the limo and killing or wounding everyone. Paul's plotters could not fall-back on a messy, bloody coup and conspiracy. The consequences of such an outcome preclude any possibility of an attempt at such a thing.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 7:08 PM, Jason Ward said:

The assassination could benefit from a refresh in mindset and modality of study. If CTers would look at the method of murder in the way that cops and the FBI look at any standard murder -- without trying to conflate method and motive -- they might find that method leads to the murderers even with an unknown motive.   

I say:  Stop looking at who benefits from the murder and start looking at:

  • Who thinks this is the best way to kill JFK?  
  • Who would choose Dallas?  
  • Who would choose long range rifle shots?  
  • Who would choose a moving target?  
  • Who would choose risky uncontrolled variables like the Dallas doctors, the witnesses, the home movie makers?

Jason

Jason,

These are new questions, and they completely refresh the CT Community mindset.  I hope readers are ready for this.

The following is my opinion:

1.  The Radical Right thinks that a military-style ambush is the best way to kill JFK, partly because they were still living in a 1940's mindset.

2.  The Radical Right would choose Dallas, partly because they virtually owned the town.

3.  The Minutemen among the Radical Right would choose long-range rifle shots, partly because they were mostly military trained.

4.  The Minutemen among the Radical Right would choose a moving target, partly because of the challenge to rifle expertise.

5.  The Radical Right would choose uncontrolled variables, because they were convinced they could fool the USA into believing the Reds killed JFK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

These are new questions, and they completely refresh the CT Community mindset.  I hope readers are ready for this.

The following is my opinion:

1.  The Radical Right thinks that a military-style ambush is the best way to kill JFK, because they were still living in a 1940's mindset.

2.  The Radical Right would choose Dallas, because they virtually owned the town.

3.  The Minutemen among the Radical Right would choose long-range rifle shots, because they were mostly military trained.

4.  The Minutemen among the Radical Right would choose a moving target because of the challenge to rifle expertise.

5.  The Radical Right would choose uncontrolled variables, because they were convinced they could fool the USA into believing the Reds killed JFK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

They really are not "new" questions Paul.   The Secret Service (and White House personnel) always believed that any assassination of JFK would be most likely to occur through a rifle shot.  Even on the morning of the assassination, JFK told his senior assistant (Kenneth O'Donnell--who repeated what JFK said to the Warren Commission)  “If anybody really wanted to shoot the President of the U.S., it was not a very difficult job—all one had to do was get a high building some day with a telescopic rifle, and there was nothing anybody could do to defend against such an attempt."

With respect to the MM having military training:   

(1)  Paul -- surely you must be aware that the United States introduced a draft during World War II and as a result, the U.S. military trained MILLIONS of men for both World War II and the Korean conflict?   You probably could not walk down ANY street in America without bumping into someone who had recently had "military training".

(2)  No matter what military training you receive, murdering someone -- especially the President of our country -- is not something as easy as making yourself a cup of coffee in the morning. 

(3)  As I have mentioned in a previous message, there are literally THOUSANDS of men and women (extreme right wingers) who used public platforms (speeches, newsletter articles,  letters-to-the-editor, annual conventions or conferences, etc) to publicly express their viciousness and hatred and contempt and irrationality toward JFK (which also occurred with President Obama--except with an added racist element) but they never translated their venom and bile into violence or into any direct physical or threatening action.  In fact, many psychologists believe that blow-torch rhetoric which is vicious and hateful is often used by political extremists as a substitute for actual physical activity -- especially for mentally disturbed individuals.

(4)  There really is not much difference between the Minutemen and other extreme right-wing groups which existed during that time -- including (of course) the most violent Klan in our nation's history whose members had already committed very serious crimes including bombings, lynchings, castrations, and murder.  Many of those Klan units and other extreme right-wing groups were organized as "gun clubs" -- particularly in the south.

In addition, there were paramilitary groups like William Gale's California Rangers -- along with the remnants of the Columbians in the south (which the U.S. Attorney General listed as a subversive fascist organization) as well as our nation's first postwar neo-fascist group (James Madole's National Renaissance Party in New York) which had a "security force" composed of guys dressed in SS-type uniforms, AND there were many other extreme right groups which were pre-disposed toward violence---all of whom had guys trained in our military.   Some of them were given dishonorable discharges from the Army or Navy because they had done something unacceptable or expressed extremist political statements or they associated with subversive or pro-nazi elements during their service.

Consequently, singling out the Minutemen does not make much sense -- especially when you consider that the MM were compartmentalized so members in the same community, or adjacent areas, often did not even know about each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/

JFK files: KGB had 'trusted relationship' with longtime Warren Commission critic Mark Lane

 
Ray Locker, USA TODAYPublished 2:09 p.m. ET Jan. 10, 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/

JFK files: KGB had 'trusted relationship' with longtime Warren Commission critic Mark Lane

 

Ray Locker, USA TODAYPublished 2:09 p.m. ET Jan. 10, 2018

More info re: Lane =====   https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10332-10004.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harry J.Dean said:

Attorney Mark Lane was an FPCC- Fair Play For Cuba Committee Member

Harry,

I'm not surprised that Mark Lane would be an FPCC member.   For many Americans, the FPCC wasn't a Communist organization, but instead was attempting to establish a simple policy of fairness for Cuba, although Fidel Castro, leader of Cuba, was ultimately aligned with the USSR.

Most Americans in that scenario didn't want any connection with the USSR, but they still wanted a connection with Cuba, which the USA had enjoyed since before 1776.

A policy of fairness for Cuba, thought many Americans, would persuade the Cubans to give up their false hopes about the USSR, so that they would voluntarily give up Communist policies, and return to normal relations with the USA.  

It is in this context, I believe, that many Americans to this very day might deny that the FPCC was really a "Communist" organization.

It is significant that you yourself, Harry, maintain that the FPCC was certainly and absolutely a Communist organization, established to serve Fidel Castro's Revolution and especially his relationship with the USSR.   You yourself were an eye-witness to the many Communist Party members who filed in and out of the FPCC offices.

Mark Lane, in my view, was one of the more naïve Americans in the 20th century.  He was Liberal to a fault, and this explained his devotion to JFK as well as his naiveté with regards to the FPCC. 

Given these observations, I have little doubt that Mark Lane's naiveté would become a special target for the KGB during the Cold War.   Whether he knew they were KGB agents at the time is certainly a question -- yet if he did, I feel certain in the case of the honorable Mark Lane, that he felt he could patriotically handle them, or anything that came his way.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, It is  a fact that we cannot know with certainty the motivations of others.

Ray,  your post is an absolute fact

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

×