Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Troglia

Why Assassination Necessary

Recommended Posts

Anyhow, Oswald, that two-bit creep, is given credit, if that's the word, for brains, power, and strategy worthy of Boris Spassky, when, in fact, he was a nothing.  Look at his grin in the Dallas jail.  It speaks volumes.

Since you call LHO a "two-bit creep" I think you must believe he played a role in the assassination. As posted in another thread, I think LHO was more intelligent than he was sometimes given credit for (this assessment of his intelligence is true whether or not he was involved in the assassination). Do not read too much into one smirk.

I am not sure myself if LHO had some participatory role in the assassination or was merely a "patsy". If he indeed played a role, it is unfortunate that those who strongly argue he was innocent are exonerating a man who played a role in such a heinous crime.

On the other hand, of course, if he was indeed an innocent patsy, how sad that he was himself murdered and how tragic that the current history books link his name to "the crime of the (20th) century".

Nobody will understand LHO as long as they insist he was a single individual.

Both Lee and Harvey were agents. Harvey had assumed Lee's identity and

became the "patsy", and was killed by Ruby. Lee is likely alive today, living

in Florida under a fictitious name in a witness protection program.

Jack

Jack:

AS I said in another thread I can't wait to read the Armstrong book. (Please don't tell me Lee is in the Keys! Tampa, or St. Pete, would be better!)

Tim,

I read Armstrong's book and am thankful I checked it out at the Library instead of paying for it. I have enough fiction on my shelves on the JFK Assassination.

Jack,

Since you have posted on the neccessity to believe in the Lee and Harvey issue in order to be realistic about LHO, then may I suggest that you start a thread on how this all worked into the assassination scenario and how Harvey walked away from it all?

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the two Oswald issue is a very interesting aspect but I'd like to come back to Paul's issue about the necessary assasination.

As he pointed out, there was/is a greater power behind the US goverment and I think that an assasination is the most risky way to solve a problem. As you are all aware of JFK's sex and drug behavior, have there been other or better prior attemps to get rid of him for instance by revealing his personal and privat mis-behaviors to the public?

I mean even today a "nipple" on a televison program causes so much "smoke" in the US-media and the tv station got fined that revealing his habits in the 60's

must had have startet a "civil war". Or was it because the Americans were just

used to such solutions because of their history?

By the way I'm not trying to offense you Americans, ok?

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the two Oswald issue is a very interesting aspect but I'd like to come back

to Paul's issue about the necessary assasination.

As he pointet out, there was/is a greater power behind the US goverment and I think that an assasination is the most risky way to solve a problem. As you are all aware of JFK's sex and drug behavior, have there been other or better prior attemps to get rid of him for instance by revealing his personal and privat mis-behaviors to the public?

I mean even today a "nipple" on a televison program causes so much "smoke" in the US-media and the tv station got fined that revealing his habits in the 60's

must  had have startet a "civil war". Or was it because the Americans were just

used to such solutions because of their history?

By the way I'm not trying to offense you Americans, ok?

George

George, IMO you are absolutely correct that JFK could have been removed from office if this behavior had been exposed. In the more liberal attitude of the 90s, marital infidelity on a much smaller scale almost removed our Pres Clinton.

So the question arises why did the people behind the assassination not use the simpler method? One answer that deserves consideration is that they were not aware of it--if this answer is correct it removes some of the subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to Vince Salandria's words to Gaeton Fonzi in "The Last Investigation"

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, I think it's hard to belive, that JFK's privat life was not known by them, especially Hoover, who always tried to get his nose as deep as possible in his enemies privacy must have had these information and the relation between him and JFK was not what I would call friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George, IMO you are absolutely correct that JFK could have been removed from office if this behavior had been exposed. In the more liberal attitude of the 90s, marital infidelity on a much smaller scale almost removed our Pres Clinton.

So the question arises why did the people behind the assassination not use the simpler method? One answer that deserves consideration is that they were not aware of it--if this answer is correct it removes some of the subjects.

Tim-

You pose a great question. While I would agree that removal from office would have been possible using less risky tactics than the assassination, such as exposing JFK's extra-marital escapades, I propose that the removal from office took place in the manner that it did because:

1) Hatred - The level of anger/hatred/betrayal that Kennedy’s enemies felt at the time (A/C Cubans, CIA/Pentagon cold warriors, MICC, Texas oilmen, etc.) made assassination a more appealing option.

2) Bobby Kennedy - Perhaps they were concerned with RFK’s ability to use his power as AG to thwart, or at least prolong/dilute, their efforts to remove JFK via legal channels, such as impeachment.

3) Sending a Message - However idealistic and progressive JFK was perceived to be, Bobby (at least this is my impression) seemed to be so to a greater degree, and he was already AG and JFK’s right-hand man in the administration at such a young age. And of course Ted was already a Senator at the time. These next two potential successors, along with the Kennedy wealth and name, must have been a large concern for right-wing radicals (A/C Cubans, CIA/Pentagon cold warriors, MICC, Texas oilmen, etc.). Perhaps such a violent, public execution was intended to also deliver a message and dissuade future challenges to the agenda of this right-wing cabal. Of course, when Bobby ran for President in spite of this, it became clear to the conspirators that he did not fear them. And of course, they murdered him also.

This, of course, is just my opinion. One thing that has always bothered me though is Bobby’s silence on his brother’s murder and the cover-up. Surely, he knew some degree of the truth. Was he simply waiting until he gained the presidency to expose the killers and conspirators? And after RFK’s death, Ted’s silence. The silence of JKF Jr. and Carolyn, etc. Have they remained silent out of fear? That seems very unlikely to me. But frankly, I cannot think of another compelling reason why they would all sit idly by and be silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greed, political opportunism, control, can all be motives or contributing factors as to why a political figure is removed from office. However, I submit we should be focusing on a primeval human compulsion; revenge motivated by pure hatred. For me, I believe this assassination was very personal.

I recognize the shades of grey involved, and how the tentacles of political power permeate throughout the cover-up while serving individual interests. The assassination plan itself however could have been very simple and executed with heinous animosity.

In the words of David Morales, "we took care of that son-of-a-bitch."

FWIW.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greed, political opportunism, control, can all be motives or contributing factors as to why a political figure is removed from office. However, I submit we should be focusing on a primeval human compulsion; revenge motivated by pure hatred. For me, I believe this assassination was very personal.

I recognize the shades of grey involved, and how the tentacles of political power permeate throughout the cover-up while serving individual interests. The assassination plan itself however could have been very simple and executed with heinous animosity.

In the words of David Morales, "we took care of that son-of-a-bitch."

FWIW.

James

Bingo! Hatred and animosity toward JFK personally and toward everything he stood for from an ideological standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greed, political opportunism, control, can all be motives or contributing factors as to why a political figure is removed from office. However, I submit we should be focusing on a primeval human compulsion; revenge motivated by pure hatred. For me, I believe this assassination was very personal.

I recognize the shades of grey involved, and how the tentacles of political power permeate throughout the cover-up while serving individual interests. The assassination plan itself however could have been very simple and executed with heinous animosity.

In the words of David Morales, "we took care of that son-of-a-bitch."

FWIW.

James

___________________________

I totally agree!!! Also JFK had so much $ he could not be bought off. In fact he never even accepted his payments as President. How many other presidents can that be said of? Nixon and his ilk detested the whole good looking, Ivy league, charming types. Look at what Tricky did long before JFK to Alger Hiss. There was a fascinating film in 1980 called "The trial of Alger Hiss" that is very constructive to get a sense of this kind of thinking, this primal envy and hatred. Another great flick on this subject is, if I can remember correctly "The Secret ....Life? of J. Edgar Hoover" Sorry that I no longer remember the name, saw it in about 73 or so. Hoover detested RFK-( and MLK)- beyond anyone's imagination. You can't write a screenplay of fiction that would ever equal these two films.

Dawn

Bingo! Hatred and animosity toward JFK personally and toward everything he stood for from an ideological standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee Harvey Oswald did it. He did it alone. There are no doubles. no grassy knoll shooters, no star chamber, nothing. A District Attorney with a degree from Lawyers-R-Us could have proved him guilty in 5 minutes. A sampling of the facts: the bullets came from his gun to the exclusion of all others;his fingerprints were on the gun found in the TSBD;he ran away from the scene of the crime;he was seen in the 6th floor window with the rifle;he went home and got a pistol after the assassination;he killed a cop who stopped him after the APB went out;he tried to kill the arresting officer in the theater but the gun jammed; he shot at Edwin Walkers house trying to kill him; he was a wife beater and on and on and on.

He is not a fascinating person. Ironically enough, the reason he did it, to become someone, has worked. Millions of people believe the little twerp was more than the nothing he was, and pass on their view of him as The Jackal. If Oswald is fascinating, Mark Chapman is awesome and John Hinckley a Man for All Seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crime is solved in my mind, but the title of this topic is "JFK Assassination Debate. To me, that means somebody takes one side and somebody else the other. I know I am pretty much the only guy on the Oswald Did It side, but, hey, I can take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

If I may draw from some of my privious posts on this thread:

"Early on, when I sarted researching in earnest, I made one rule for myself. It says that I would accept every persons points of view and information as points and information that was arrived at sincerely. I would then choose to accept, discard or set aside that information for review as I continued to learn more."

With that said I welcome you to the board and will accept your remarks as sincere and hope that you continue to post in a positive manner. As I said in my first post on this thread, "Seldom in my life have I seen a question so well asked!" Weather you wish to believe there was some sort of conspiracy or not your point, "these potential "conspirators" exposed themselves as the men "behind the curtain." A great loss to themselves" is something we should all keep in mind.

My post on "Pascal's Wager" where you stated, "the heads/tails thing escapes me" can be explained as, no matter what side of the coin you are on in the assassination debate, we are, each, either 100% right about Oswald or 100% wrong. He is either a shooter or he is not, but no matter what we each choose the above is true, we are correct or we are wrong.

As my "Big Fish" thread points out. if Oswald was a "two-bit creep" who as you say, "He did it alone" and " he did it, to become someone" why was the CIA, at the highest levels monitoring what magazines he was subscribing too? Jeff Morley, an editor for the Washington Post, a news organization that took the position that Oliver Stone's movie JFK was bunk, has recovered the document that FBI agent Hosty wrote in the summer or 1963 (before Oswald was in New Orleans passing out anti-Castro leaflets, etc) and has documented this information being passed directly to the office of Richard Helms who became Head of the CIA. Either he already was "someone" or the agency tasked with maintaining the security of the United State was, at the highest levels, wasting TAX PAYER dollars on insignificant people. I personally believe Richard Helms would have had more important things to do.

But this is the cut in your original post that started this thread, "Why would a plot to kill JFK be necessary if the conspiracy was as all powerful as described throughout this forum? Why not let the masses believe in the power of the president, while they (the conspiracy) pull the strings, you know, like the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

This is exactly why we search for the answers that we search for. That is why, I believe, this whole thing is not so simple as many think. This "two bit" insignificant guy, who was being monitored by the CIA who withheld information from the Warren Commission/Americn People about Oswald who was involved with the assassination of the President of the United States. If nothing else, this type of activity by our government is unacceptable in a Democratic Republic.

At the begining of his book, The Murder of Admiral Darlan (written in 1964) by Peter Tompkins, himself a former OSS agent that was working with Richard Helms in Germany at the end of WWII begins with these words quoted from Waverley Root:

"It is the business of Democratic journalists to try to turn the light of day into the dusty corners of secret diplomacy, and to expose to the view of the people the machinations which seek to dispose of them, even in the republics, in defiance of the principle which states that the people should decide ther own fate.

'Such journalist are therefore engaged in an unending war against secretive officials. They seek to expose what the officials seek to hide. If they win, the officials of the future will be of a new stripe (of whom we have some already), who will carry on their activities in the full view of the public, hiding nothing form them.

'If the keepers of the secrets win, there will be no more journalists in the future at all. Only scribes setting down slavishly what they are told to write. We have some of these already, too."

The Murder of Admiral Darlan is the story of a conspiracy designed to gain power over the government of Free France. A young agent accepts and carries out the plot only to linger in his sell awaiting rescue for two days. By the end of the second day the assassin is dead.

Food for thought,

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

I have a feeling, after reading much (but not all) of the JFK Assassination posts on this site, that many people (perhaps not yourself) don't realize the Warren Report was a conclusion based on 26 volumes of testimony taken during the investigation in 1964. Oswald's connections to the CIA, Hosty's name in his notebook, the Moorman photo, the Umbrella Man, the tramps, Sylvia Odio, and all the other "smoking guns" are discussed at length in those 26 volumes. They were and are not secrets.

The Report is a "best guess" but has, after forty years, proved to be a solid one, surviving congressional investigations, committees, and countless scientific, accoustical and ballistic reenactments. The Freedom of Information Act has even made the lone assassin conclusion stronger. Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, Richard Popkin (his "The Second Oswald" was written in 1964, I think;so much for the "new" theory being bandied about) all made names for themselves as whistle blowers of the "dark side" by using the information freely available in those volumes. A government with something to hide doesn't let people check its books, or, for that matter, let them publish expose's that bring the plot to light.

I understand now what you meant by the coin toss. But I disagree with your point that we can choose how we feel about Oswald. That would not be intellectually honest when you face, pardon me, but this metaphor is appropriate if insensitive, the tsunami of facts that overwhelmingly convicts him and him alone.

There is an old saying, A lie has speed, but truth has staying power. The lone assassin conclusion has held up a mighty long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

I appreciate the dialog.

When the movie JFK came out I was angry that so much "artistic" license had been taken by Oliver Stone. Just as I was having those feelings I realized that, in fact, I was not that well educated on the subject and decided I needed to learn more before I could be critical and knowledgable at the same time.

I remember thinking at the time, any cold case begins with the record. So I went to a used book store and bought the Warren Report and begn reading. Within the first 30 pages of the summary I was reading about Major General Edwin Anderson Walker and the fact that on April 10, 1963 (seven month before the assassination of Kennedy) Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to shoot Walker. I had never heard of Walker but knew that any man who was a Major General in 1963 played a role in World War II. Being a military history "nut" I began doing a little research on the man. 10 years later, here I am and of course I have a hypothisis (I refuse to call it a theory because I am still looking for anybody to explain away what I have discovered).

If Oswald acted alone I felt that he would need a motive of some sort. In todays age we might call Oswald a serial killer if he had in fact killed both Kennedy and Walker. I guess I was looking for a link that would give him some sort of motive. It did not take me long to find a potential link. My guide was the 26 volumns of suporting documentation.

In the Walker testimony the person who questions Walker makes a statement about not needing to go into his backround because everyone knew who he was. I had lived and remember vividly the assassination but I sure did not know who General Walker was. This as well as the rest of the testimony intriqued me, especially the part where Walker was contacted by a German newpaper at 7:00 A.M. on the moring following the assassination while he was staying at the Captain Shreve Hotel in Shreveport, LA. (how did they know he was there?). That newpaper printed a story the following Wednesday that Oswald had shot at Walker. It was not until the following weekend that the FBI became aware of this same information from Marina Oswald. I thought this very strange. Walker, it seemed to me at the time, had acted like a man who may have been very scared the day following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. As I would later learn, fear was not a trait that Walker was known for!.

When I found that Walker was a far "right winger" but had been at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, I began to focus upon this Forrest Gump type figure that was in more than one historical location in his life. I soon found that being at the forfront of World events was common for Walker.m Perhaps to common.

Loking deeper I learned, that the man whom the Warren Commision did not bother looking intos past, had commanded the First Special Services Force (arguably the the most uniquely trained unit of WWII and the "father" of the Green Berets) and had traveled to Europe, to take over the 24th Infantry Division, at the same time that Oswald was making his defection to Russia. My question was, could they have met along the way?

Using the Warren Report as my guide my original thoughts have led me to discover a close relationship between Edwin Walker and Maxwell Taylor and to many other coincidences to mention here (I invite you to read my previous posts).

New evidence, recently uncovered by Jeff Morley only lends additional support to my original hypothesis.

My story goes bact to 1927 and a young cadet, Edwin Walker, who meets an instructor at West Point named Maxwell Taylor. It is a story of intrigue that is on an international scale. It goes from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It takes us to the verge of nuclear war (First Straits of Taiwan Crisis) and to an attempted phone call that the HSCA discovered Oswald may have attemtpted to make to a man named John Hurt. The story is about an airplane trip to Helsinki that the CIA could not identify at the time (in 1994 researcher Chris Mills found the answer) but that the Warren Commission reports cost exactly $111.90. It shows that on the exact day that the US Embassy in Helsinki sends a message to the State Department (a message that was only declassified for the HSCA) which said that a tourist that would show up at the Russian Embassy in Helsinki with Intouris Visas in hand could get a visa into Russia withing 48 hours. Oswald followed these instructions to the letter after haveing deverted from France and travelling in England on the that same day only to show up at the only embassy in the world where he could easily get into Russia, just as the classified embassy message said.

Yes Ron, the Warren Commission and the HSCA as well as the supporting documentation is something that we all need to study. I have and I have gone from believing that Oswald was a "lone nut" assassin to now believing something very different.

Jim Root

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

×
×
  • Create New...