The Communication Breakdown

[Robin Unger]

Robin , Mark and Bernice

Robin's NSA Document is a routine day officers sheet from 11/22/63.

Classification was low - although routinely marked TOP SECRET it is really only confidential. Notice the lack of UMBRA VERONA COMINT style classification level here. This thing was MEANT for later release. It is a staged sheet of routine business the day JFK was shot. A Duty Officer (name removed) and his boss's signatures are removed. In fine print in the lower right hand is the cross listing #s and these may lead to other files from that day.......

This thing is a historical text and it has a narrative.

The setting is the Signals intelligence Command Center of the US NAtional Security Agency (probably Ft. Meade) record of events from Eight A.M to Four P.M. down at the watch desk. It is a reoutine officer of the day mailroom type list.

Nine forty five a.m. recieved the APSO message, (code # USJ 790 or DTG2104297) and Holst picked up these routine dailies.

One Thirty ..... Routine distribution of BRASS documents by officer Newman.

Two Fourteen P.M. Sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President shot

Two Thirty Six PM sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President dead

Two Forty Six     INDIC message from DIA received and farmed out

A routine day, on a document meant for historical release...........?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Shanet.

What does it mean by, " All copies tape picked up "

Edited June 6, 2005 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Robin , Mark and Bernice

Robin's NSA Document is a routine day officers sheet from 11/22/63.

Classification was low - although routinely marked TOP SECRET it is really only confidential. Notice the lack of UMBRA VERONA COMINT style classification level here. This thing was MEANT for later release. It is a staged sheet of routine business the day JFK was shot. A Duty Officer (name removed) and his boss's signatures are removed. In fine print in the lower right hand is the cross listing #s and these may lead to other files from that day.......

This thing is a historical text and it has a narrative.

The setting is the Signals intelligence Command Center of the US NAtional Security Agency (probably Ft. Meade) record of events from Eight A.M to Four P.M. down at the watch desk. It is a reoutine officer of the day mailroom type list.

Nine forty five a.m. recieved the APSO message, (code # USJ 790 or DTG2104297) and Holst picked up these routine dailies.

One Thirty ..... Routine distribution of BRASS documents by officer Newman.

Two Fourteen P.M. Sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President shot

Two Thirty Six PM sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President dead

Two Forty Six     INDIC message from DIA received and farmed out

A routine day, on a document meant for historical release...........?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Shanet.

What does it mean by, " All copies tape picked up "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The cabinet members.

[Mark Stapleton]

Robin , Mark and Bernice

Robin's NSA Document is a routine day officers sheet from 11/22/63.

Classification was low - although routinely marked TOP SECRET it is really only confidential. Notice the lack of UMBRA VERONA COMINT style classification level here. This thing was MEANT for later release. It is a staged sheet of routine business the day JFK was shot. A Duty Officer (name removed) and his boss's signatures are removed. In fine print in the lower right hand is the cross listing #s and these may lead to other files from that day.......

This thing is a historical text and it has a narrative.

The setting is the Signals intelligence Command Center of the US NAtional Security Agency (probably Ft. Meade) record of events from Eight A.M to Four P.M. down at the watch desk. It is a reoutine officer of the day mailroom type list.

Nine forty five a.m. recieved the APSO message, (code # USJ 790 or DTG2104297) and Holst picked up these routine dailies.

One Thirty ..... Routine distribution of BRASS documents by officer Newman.

Two Fourteen P.M. Sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President shot

Two Thirty Six PM sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President dead

Two Forty Six    INDIC message from DIA received and farmed out

A routine day, on a document meant for historical release...........?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet,

Thanks for clearing that up. I seriously doubt that any NSA docs released would incriminate them. This organisation is allowed the luxury of operating without the burden of any public scrutiny whatsoever. Their predictable defence is undoubtedly that it's for America's security. To some extent they have a point, making it unlikely that researchers will discover more information in the near future.

I agree with Bill and Jim that the payphone calls by Cabot Lodge were bizarre. It's probably one the reasons that so many advance rumors concerning the assassination were recieved. Interesting to speculate on who he called. My reading of all this is that it was primarily a military action, with the assent of LBJ and some high level Cabinet members like Rusk and Dillon, giving it executive imprimatur. As we know, there were many powerful groups arrayed against JFK but it's useful to focus on the parties who were in a position to do it and get away with it. The military/executive occupies pole position. The Pentagon then and still does consider itself the Government.

[Tim Gratz]

Whopee doo!! Great speculation, fellows, but with no evidence whatsoever. (Am I surprised?)

And if JFK is in any position to be reviewing this Forum, I'm sure he is shedding many, many tears. You see, Douglas Dillon, despite being a Republican, was one of JFK's closest friends. I'm sure none of you guys (I'm obviously excluding Ron and Pat) knew that because you feel free to post these wild imaginings without having read the basic biographies of JFK.

I seriously suggest you take a month or two leave of absence from the Forum, read the history books, and then come back when you have a better under- standing of what was going on in the Kennedy administration. I'll be glad to provide you with a bibliography upon your request.

For those interested below is a link to biographical information on C. Douglas Dillon. His close friendship with JFK is described in more than one Kennedy biography.

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/CDouglasDillon.htm

Edited June 6, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Whopee doo!! Great speculation, fellows, but with no evidence whatsoever. (Am I surprised?)

And if JFK is in any position to be reviewing this Forum, I'm sure he is shedding many, many tears.  You see, Douglas Dillon, despite being a Republican, was one of JFK's closest friends.  I'm sure none of you guys (I'm obviously excluding Ron and Pat) knew that because you feel free to post these wild imaginings without having read the basic biographies of JFK.

I seriously suggest you take a month or two leave of absence from the Forum, read the history books, and then come back when you have a better under- standing of what was going on in the Kennedy administration.  I'll be glad to provide you  with a bibliography upon your request.

For those interested below is a link to biographical information on C. Douglas Dillon.  His close friendship with JFK is described in more than one Kennedy biography.

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/CDouglasDillon.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew it was too good to be true. Here comes Tim singing his predictable tune.

[Tim Gratz]

Yes, it is predictable that I think it goes beyond civilized ethical behaviour to accuse one of John Kennedy's best friends of complicity in his assassination without an iota of evidence to back it up.

So what does Mark do? Ask for the Kennedy biographies in which he can read of the relationship and friendship between Dillon and Kennedy? No, that would be too much to ask.

Just sail on in your fantasy world, Mark. A lot easier to post nonsense than it is to read a book cover-to-cover. But that's why Pat's posts, and Ron's, always make more sense than yours. Of course I do not agree with all of their theories either but I know that they have read and carefully digested the history. And I have learned much from their postings.

Whether true or not, the standard definition of McCarthyism is to level baseless charges against someone. Some of the theories posted here are McCarthyism run rampant.

Now, is it POSSIBLE that someone who has been named a conspirator here actually was, despite the paucity of evidence? Certainly, anything is possible. But that does not excuse calling the person an assassin when there is no evidence to support it. And I would bet my bottom dollar that Douglas Dillon would have died to protect his friend. (Which is why,I suppose, the accusations against Dillon really disturb me.)

One might as well say Bobby Kennedy did it because he knew that he would have a wave of political popularity due to the martydom of his brother. And there were policy differences between the two brothers, including the important one of whether or not to depose Diem. I could argue that Bobby had decided that his brother was indeed a Communist agent since the Vietnmam coup so helped the Communist cause. Maybe Bobby and Dillon were co-conspirators. I mean, if one of your best friends is going to kill you, why not your brother also? Of course I am not serious but my point is that merely stating someone had a motive to kill Kennedy is insufficient to publicy accuse them--that is if you have a shred of morality in your bones.

Well there is one thing you have going for you. Just bring along your postings and I can assure you you'll never have to serve jury duty.

You come from the left, of course, but if you were coming from the right wing you would have been a prime recruitment candidate for the John Birch Society which was also known for making reckless charges against public officials, charges not founded in fact.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

And Mark, despite my concern with people (well, like you) accusing people who are probably innocent of the foulest act of murderous treason, I sincerely wish you the happiest birthday! Enjoy your last two years to the fullest, before you are "over the hill". Well, I think I did not notice my body slowing down until I turned 55, not 50--but my brain a lot earlier than that!

[HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MARK! ENJOY IT!

Edited June 6, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Yes, it is predictable that I think it goes beyond civilized ethical behaviour to accuse one of John Kennedy's best friends of complicity in his assassination without an iota of evidence to back it up.

So what does Mark do?  Ask for the Kennedy biographies in which he can read of the relationship and friendship between Dillon and Kennedy?  No, that would be too much to ask.

Just sail on in your fantasy world, Mark.  A lot easier to post nonsense than it is to read a book cover-to-cover.  But that's why Pat's posts, and Ron's, always make more sense than yours.  Of course I do not agree with all of their theories either but I know that they have read and carefully digested the history.

Whether true or not, the standard definition of McCarthyism is to level baseless charges against someone.  Some of the theories posted here are McCarthyism run rampant.

Well there is one thing you have going for you.  Just bring along your postings and I can assure you you'll never have to serve jury duty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Congratulations on turning another thread into a dogfight. I'm not sure what you mean about serving jury duty. I like reading posts from Pat and Ron too. This is because they are authorities on the case but more importantly they have an open mind on the matter, willing to evaluate evidence on its merits. Sadly Tim, the same doesn't apply to you.

I was unaware that I am required to have read a requisite number of books, as prescribed by you, in order to be permitted to express an opinion. You obviously don't like the direction this thread is heading. The bio of Dillon which you posted says nothing--I already knew of his career and background. It reveals nothing concerning the questions being asked on this thread. Tim, you are diligent, well-read and conscientious--at digging up fool's gold.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I think you need to know the close relationship between Dillon and JFK before you accuse Dillon or killing JFK.

I think I said it once before: there is as much evidence that Bon Dylan killed JFK as there is that Douglas Dillon did.

And yes I think a certain knowledge of the personalities and events of the 1960s should be required before one posts such wild theories.

"Fools gold" indeed. There are many people, far more intelligent than you or I (probably than both of us together) who believe there was Cuban involvement in the assassination. I am unaware of any assassination book, including those written by the wildest conspiratorialists, who suggest that JFK's friend Douglas Dillon plotted his murder.

I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that, for instance, David Morales was involved in the assassination. But at least he hated JFKand his policies. Dillon, on the other hand, was JFK's personal friend AND also supported his policies. So I repeat myself: I think only a person devoid of moral sensibilities can accuse such a respected American politician of murdering his friend.

You have yet, I notice, to suggest any evidence to support your blood libel (well it would be libel if Dillon was still alive.) I am confident Caroline Kennedy does not read this stuff but I am sure she would be aghast that you accuse her father's close friend of his murder.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Perhaps I should add that given Kennedy's involvement with Judith Campbell, Marilyn Monroe and Ellen Rometsch, and his sharing national security secrets with Monroe, Shanet's theory of "Executive Sanction" has some possible merit. Some one in authority could have decided that it was not only in the country's best interest but also in JFK's best interest that he leave office a martyr rather than branded as a traitor. That being said, we can be assured that if anything like that happened a Kennedy friend and loyalist like Dillon was not part of the plot.

Hoover? Maybe. But it is equally wrong morally to accuse Hoover without any evidence. And in my opinion Hoover was extremely upset that his agents "blew it", leaving the biggest black mark on the history of the agency. Remember of course that less than a month earlier Hoover had saved JFK's derrier by his intervention in the congressional investigation of the Bobby Baker affai.

And, as I have said before, what cuts against Shanet's theory is that anyone privy to the "dark side of Camelot" could have destroyed JFK publicly by simply going to the press. It makes little sense to think they would risk a murder charge and the infamy of history merely to make their enemy a martyr. Because I can assure you that even if the conspirator(s) had revealed the darkest secrets of Camelot to justify their deed, most Americans would have clamored to see them torn limb from limb.

[Norman T. Field]

Another very interesting post, Bernice. One aspect I've sometimes considered is who would be the agencies the MIC would have employed to do the actual shooting, assuming no military personnel were used and the conspirators didn't rely solely on anti-Castro forces ? (I don't believe they would have considered such a potentially hazardous option--the anti-Castro force's record on successful assassinations was hardly impressive.) In focusing on the CIA, we might be looking at the wrong agency. The NSA comes under suspicion by it's hard edged secrecy alone. The other alternative is that military intelligence agents were used. Friendly foreign intelligence agencies could also be implicated.

The who and why aspects of your post are very convincing. We should now consider the how.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Suddenly, Mr. Trafficante and his associated become a supplier of wet work contractors? The series TMWKK on HC, sez he brought them over from France.

[Norman T. Field]

Perhaps I should add that given Kennedy's involvement with Judith Campbell, Marilyn Monroe and Ellen Rometsch, and his sharing national security secrets with Monroe, Shanet's theory of "Executive Sanction" has some possible merit.  Some one in authority could have decided that it was not only in the country's best interest but also in JFK's best interest that he leave office a martyr rather than branded as a traitor.  That being said, we can be assured that if anything like that happened a Kennedy friend and loyalist like Dillon was not part of the plot.

Hoover?  Maybe.  But it is equally wrong morally to accuse Hoover without any evidence.  And in my opinion Hoover was extremely upset that his agents "blew it", leaving the biggest black mark on the history of the agency.  Remember of course that less than a month earlier Hoover had saved JFK's derrier by his intervention in the congressional investigation of the Bobby Baker affai.

And, as I have said before, what cuts against Shanet's theory is that anyone privy to the "dark side of Camelot" could have destroyed JFK publicly by simply going to the press.  It makes little sense to think they would risk a murder charge and the infamy of history merely to make their enemy a martyr.  Because I can assure you that even if the conspirator(s) had revealed the darkest secrets of Camelot to justify their deed, most Americans would have clamored to see them torn limb from limb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many have suggested that Hoover became aware of the plot via FBI bugs on OC, specifically in Chicago. Hoover hated Kennedy and wanted him gone real bad. It was Hoover's dirt that enabled LBJ to become Vice President, so what is to lose by keeping quiet?

[Mark Knight]

Tim, one doesn't attempt to precipitate a military invasion/nuclear attack by "simply going to the press." If "destroy[ing] JFK publicly" WAS the only motivation, then "simply going to the press" would've been the most efficient way to destroy him AND keep one's own hands clean simultaneously.

So how does this go AGAINST Shanet's theory? I think your argument here actually SUPPORTS the theory that there was a high-level coup, and that its purpose wasn't merely to destroy reputations. If the military was involved in a coup, the objective would've been to precipitate some sort of military (re)action...and I have my doubts that the slow-building Vietnam war was what these folks had in mind.

And about Mr. Dillon...I read the "boilerplate" biographical info for his medal ceremony at the link you posted...nothing very insightful there...UNLESS you notice his position under Ike as Under Secretary of State--yes, the same State Department that the CIA used as cover when it planted spies abroad--in charge of the "Mutual Security Program," both the "military and nonmilitary aspects." Sounds like ex-CIA director GHW Bush honoring one of his own men to me, but I could be wrong. And I find NOTHING in this psuedo-biography that makes me think of Dillon as a saint or anything else above and beyond another Washington bureaucrat being honored by his cronies.

However, as head of the Treasury Department, UNLESS he was part of the conspiracy--and I'm not convinced that he was--I really doubt that he gave a second thought to the day-to-day operations of the Secret Service until AFTER the assassination. [GOOD management people know how to delegate, and I don't doubt that Dillon was a good manager.]

[Shanet Clark]

Robin , Mark and Bernice

Robin's NSA Document is a routine day officers sheet from 11/22/63.

Classification was low - although routinely marked TOP SECRET it is really only confidential. Notice the lack of UMBRA VERONA COMINT style classification level here. This thing was MEANT for later release. It is a staged sheet of routine business the day JFK was shot. A Duty Officer (name removed) and his boss's signatures are removed. In fine print in the lower right hand is the cross listing #s and these may lead to other files from that day.......

This thing is a historical text and it has a narrative.

The setting is the Signals intelligence Command Center of the US NAtional Security Agency (probably Ft. Meade) record of events from Eight A.M to Four P.M. down at the watch desk. It is a reoutine officer of the day mailroom type list.

Nine forty five a.m. recieved the APSO message, (code # USJ 790 or DTG2104297) and Holst picked up these routine dailies.

One Thirty ..... Routine distribution of BRASS documents by officer Newman.

Two Fourteen P.M. Sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President shot

Two Thirty Six PM sent message to CAG ONNIS reporting President dead

Two Forty Six     INDIC message from DIA received and farmed out

A routine day, on a document meant for historical release...........?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Shanet.

What does it mean by, " All copies tape picked up "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It looks like the USJ (joint chiefs?) message DTZwhatever came in aand was then distributed out in the form of copies and a computer tape. By Ten a.m. the copies of the daily report were farmed out with the backup tape, looks like....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim

Bernice's Post, the facts that head up this thread, are the evidence.

Jim Root's analysis and Al Currier's conclusions, Dr. Mantik's work, that is my support.

So tedious, that line you got into / you should drop it and stop derailing our talks.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Stan Wilbourne]

gone

Edited March 6, 2010 by Stan Wilbourne