Chasing Our Tails?

[Evan Marshall]

It seems to be at the root of a conspiracy would be the desire to go uncovered. When you start looking at who could control the route, the evidence, the autopsy, and any federal investigations you're far beyond a bunch of red necks burning crosses or even wealthy citizens outside the federal government.

We may salivate on the Mafia or the radical right but it doesn't bare close scrutiny. Having known a number of feds their mantra is don't embarrass the bureau or the agency. Nor would they be content in such a case to hook up with folks who would rat them out.

And I continually see folks advocating a conspiracy the size of Maine. It would not only be unworkable but unnecessary. When I was a trainer at NNSA we table toped scenarios where we could basically shut the country down with less than 50 people. Our bosses got so alarmed they classified the whole project!

Edited August 4, 2018 by Evan Marshall

[Mark Knight]

Oh, I think there were a lot of separate groups involved in the JFK assassination. But I believe they all operated separately. Call it a "perfect storm," if you will.

Suspect groups are, in no particular order:

*Mafia

*Pro-Castro Cubans

*Anti-Castro Cubans

*CIA, or certain factions thereof

*John Birch Society

*right-wing nut jobs NOT affiliated with the JBS.

Once JFK was dead, as Gerry Hemming used to post, it mattered less WHO did it, to those who wanted him dead. If one of the other factions did it, the Mafia people assigned/contracted to do the hit are certainly NOT going to say they DIDN'T do it and turn down the money for the hit.

Same with the other groups.

They're not going to say anything publicly, for obvious reasons. But they were assigned the hit, and the target wound up dead. So surely those who were assigned the hit, truly or falsely took credit for doing the deed. If there was money involved, they took the payoff whether they pulled the trigger or not. JFK was dead, Ozzie was posthumously "convicted" by the Warren Commission, and no one would be the wiser. 

Except those damned conspiracy folks won't let the case die.

[David Andrews]

At the time at FBI, "Follow Mr. Hoover's orders" may have superseded "Don't embarrass the Bureau," at least for a select few.

[David Boylan]

Always worth a view or two. Gene Wheaton and what he knew.

 

[Paul Brancato]

6 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

Always worth a view or two. Gene Wheaton and what he knew.

 

David - does anyone know where the docs are that he turned over to the ARRB?

[David Boylan]

Paul,

Not that I am aware of. I do find it interesting that Brad Ayers tried to discredit Wheaton by claiming to the ARRB that he was fed disinfo by these guys. 

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB-Emails/ARRBmails13239.pdf

 

[James DiEugenio]

The late Mike Ruppert had some rather unkind comments about Wheaton.  To put it mildly, he did not trust him.

[W. Niederhut]

7 hours ago, David Andrews said:

At the time at FBI, "Follow Mr. Hoover's orders" may have superseded "Don't embarrass the Bureau," at least for a select few.

  

          Speaking of orders, isn't there a now de-classified CIA memo from 1964 ordering all agency personnel to do whatever was necessary to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report in the United States?

         I have sometimes wondered if such a general executive order would have entailed offing witnesses whose testimony could debunk the WCR.

Edited August 5, 2018 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Clark]

Am I chasing my tail? If that question is dependent on whether I will find an answer, the yes, I may be; but I won’t know until I’m dead.

The thing is, is that it is important to do this now, while the JFKA and it’s results are still in living memory.

On the the other hand, if I believe some things, know other things and have important questions, I should put them down in writing or on some other media or my time is wasted. I can only go so far and so frequently with friends family and acquaintances; I can’t force this responsibility on them. I am glad, however, that I can answer some questions with authority, understand where I cannot, and know the difference. 

Certainly, after more than a few drinks one should not go there.

[David Andrews]

On 8/5/2018 at 4:08 PM, James DiEugenio said:

The late Mike Ruppert had some rather unkind comments about Wheaton.  To put it mildly, he did not trust him.

Before the end, Ruppert did not much care for D*n**l Sh**h*n either - for whom Wheaton worked as an investigator:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21565