Thinking Black Thoughts

[Pat Speer]

Oh yes, Lee, I did read this. I think I even posted on the thread about Oxnard or something. Well, Hunt's involvement certainly would make sense due to his proximity to Phillips. The so-called Angleton memo seems to back this up.

Elsewhere I've read that Wean eventually admitted that the John in his story was Senator John Tower. John Simkin should know about that.

[John Simkin]

Elsewhere I've read that Wean eventually admitted that the John in his story was Senator John Tower.  John Simkin should know about that.

Was that after John Tower died? In 1964 Tower was the Republican senator for Texas. When he was elected in May, 1961 (he had replaced LBJ who had to resign his seat because he had been elected as JFK Vice President) he became the first Republican senator elected in Texas since 1870.

This story raises a few questions. First of all, how did he know about this story? What was his relationship with Hunt? Why would he tell Bill Decker, Audie Murphy and Gary Wean about it? Who was Gary Wean’s partner? Is he dead? Did he ever confirm this story?

By the way, George Michael Evica is a member of this Forum but has never posted. Shall I tell him about this thread?

Members might be interested in the following two threads where this issue has been raised before:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2861

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2358

[John Simkin]

Have you read all of the tapes before you made this assessment?

I think you need to read all of the tapes before you can make an intelligent assessment if it was all just a game being played.  The latter does not make sense because there was no plan to release them.  So the idea that LBJ was just acting so he could use the tapes to prove he was innocent makes no sense.

I believe LBJ was a crook.  I believed that in 1964.  But he did not kill Kennedy.  The tapes help demonstrate that.

Read the tapes.

I have read the tapes and do not agree that they show that LBJ was not behind the assassination of JFK.

Here is some background information on the LBJ tapes.

The dictating equipment used to record the conversations was attached to LBJ's telephone line. Johnson signalled the secretary when he wanted a conversation recorded, and she pressed a switch located at her desk to activate the machine. It appears from the content and nature of the recordings that the secretaries often left the machine running and recorded many conversations inadvertently.

Between November 1963 and January 1969, LBJ taped over 9,500 conversations (around 643 hours).

According to LBJ’s aid, Mildred Stegall, he made these tapes for two main reasons: (i) to use the information to apply pressure on political friends; (ii) to help him write his memoirs.

It is that LBJ never intended to make these tapes public. One of the last conversations he had with Stegall was a reminder that she had to make sure they never became public. However, when he died on 22nd January, 1973, Stegall did not obey his instructions. Instead she placed the tapes and transcripts in sealed boxes and placed them in the Johnson Library. A label was added to the boxes that they must not be opened until 2023.

The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 required the Johnson Library, like all U.S. government archives to open virtually all of its holdings dealing with the Dallas murder. This forced the Johnson Library to hand over the tapes. Significantly, after being examined by the intelligence services, 4 per cent of the tapes were not released.

As LBJ never intended these tapes to become public. However, at the same time he was careful about what he said on the phone. This is mainly because of the person at the other end of the line. It is clear that he uses these conversations to provide a motive for his decision to cover-up the assassination. As we know, the main reason according to LBJ was to avoid a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

I cannot see how anyone who knows anything about the political situation of the early 1960s can believe such a daft idea. There is no chance that the Soviet Union would have launched a nuclear attack on the US if LBJ had ordered the invasion of Cuba. All the superpowers had spheres of influence where they were allowed to do what they liked. This is why the US did not go to war when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

If LBJ was so frightened of a nuclear war why did he bomb North Vietnam? That was much more likely to have caused a nuclear conflict than an invasion of Cuba to avenge the assassination of JFK.

There is only one reason why LBJ refused to go along with the idea that JFK had been killed as part of a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy. He knew that any full investigation would have revealed that no such conspiracy existed. It would have also revealed who Oswald was really working for. It would also have provided evidence of LBJ’s own corrupt activities. The safest strategy was to close the whole thing off with the “lone gunman” theory. Oswald was dead and could not answer back. With the help of the Warren Commission and Operation Mockingbird, Oswald became the "patsy".

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

It is clear that he uses these conversations to provide a motive for his decision to cover-up the assassination. As we know, the main reason according to LBJ was to avoid a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

I cannot see how anyone who knows anything about the political situation of the early 1960s can believe such a daft idea. There is no chance that the Soviet Union would have launched a nuclear attack on the US if LBJ had ordered the invasion of Cuba. All the superpowers had spheres of influence where they were allowed to do what they liked. This is why the US did not go to war when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

John, so you agree that in October of 1962 Curtis LeMay and the other military advisers who urged Kennedy to immediately invade Cuba were correct that the Soviets would not respond militarily?

And in resisting the demands of his military advisers Kennedy was responding to a "daft" idea that the Soviet Union might initiate a nuclear attack if we invaded Cuba?

You may very well be correct that LeMay and others were right and Kennedy chose negotiation over invasion because of his belief in a "daft idea". I may very well agree with you.

But this turns the consensus of history on its head, that being that the Cuban missile crisis was Kennedy's "finest hour" and he may very well have saved the world by courageously resisting the demands of his military advisers and choosing negotiation over military confrontation.

And if Kennedy was governing his actions on a "daft" idea, how can you say that Johnson did not also share the "daft" idea that had he invaded Cuba (in retaliation for the Kennedy assassination) it might prompt a cataclysmic nuclear exchange?

I would also point out that when Johnson used the war argument to persuade Chief Justice Earl Warren to head the commission, it was not Warren's response to LBJ that he was "daft" to think the Soviets would retaliate if the US invaded Cuba if it turned out that Castro was behind the assassination.

So you might be right that the idea that thye Soviet Union would initiate a suicidal attack on the United States over Cuba was "daft" (the Curtis LeMay view). But that "daft" idea was held by John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson, Earl Warren and, I submit, by Lyndon Johnson.

Edited March 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

John, so you agree that in October of 1962 Curtis LeMay and the other military advisers who urged Kennedy to immediately invade Cuba were correct that the Soviets would not respond militarily?

And in resisting the demands of his military advisers Kennedy was responding to a "daft" idea that the Soviet Union might initiate a nuclear attack if we invaded Cuba?

You may very well be correct that LeMay and others were right and Kennedy chose negotiation over invasion because of his belief in a "daft idea".  I may very well agree with you.

But this turns the consensus of history on its head, that being that the Cuban missile crisis was Kennedy's "finest hour" and he may very well have saved the world by courageously resisting the demands of his military advisers and choosing negotiation over military confrontation.

You are confusing two different issues here. The Cuban Missile Crisis was very different from the invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union had placed men and weapons in a country in America’s sphere of influence. Once this became known, JFK had no choice but to resolve the issue. It then became a question of how you did this.

The Executive Committee of the National Security Council (ECNSC) came up with six possible solutions.

(1) Do nothing. The United States should ignore the missiles in Cuba. The United States had military bases in 127 different countries including Cuba. The United States also had nuclear missiles in several countries close to the Soviet Union. It was therefore only right that the Soviet Union should be allowed to place missiles in Cuba.

(2) Negotiate. The United States should offer the Soviet Union a deal. In return for the Soviet Union dismantling her missiles in Cuba, the United States would withdraw her nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy.

(3) Invasion. Send United States troops to Cuba to overthrow Castro's government. The missiles could then be put out of action and the Soviet Union could no longer use Cuba as a military base.

(4) Blockade of Cuba. Use the United States Navy to stop military equipment reaching Cuba from the Soviet Union.

(5) Bomb Missile Bases. Carry out conventional air-strikes against missiles and other military targets in Cuba.

(6) Nuclear Weapons. Use nuclear weapons against Cuba and/or the Soviet Union.

The majority of the ECNSC wanted to do 5. During the discussion Curtis LeMay went as far as to suggest 6. Either of these options would probably have resulted in a nuclear war that could have destroyed the world. Option 3 would have been dangerous because of the presence of Soviet troops. It would also have been impossible to justify because of US nuclear missiles in Turkey.

What JFK actually did was options 2 and 4 (although 2 was kept secret from the American public).

As you can see, this is very different from invading a small neighbouring country whose ruler has just organized the assassination of your president.

[Tim Gratz]

John,

Simply put, did not JFK resist an invasion for fear that it would invite a Soviet response?

Is it your position that the Soviet Union might have responded miliutarily had we invaded Cuba to get our missiles out but would not have responded militarily if we had invaded Cuba to get rid of Castro because we believed he had sponsored the assassination?

The fact that the United States did not respond to the Soviet suppression of popular uprisings in Hungary and Czechloslovakia (as we should have) does not mean the Soviet Union would not have responded militarily had we invaded Cuba to overthrow Fidel, who was by that time their client (remember Fidel and entourage had spent five weeks in the Soviet Union in the spring of 1963).

And again, Earl Warren did not feel that LBJ's concern over a nuclear war if a determination was made that Cuba had sponsored the assassination "daft".

You may speculate that LBJ's concern was feigned because he KNEW Castro did not do it but you cannot deny that intelligent, rational men such as Warren responded to the argument.

The results of a nuclear war would be cataclysmic. It would be taking quite a gamble that the Soviet Union would not have responded to an invasion of Cuba merely because it was close to the United States and because we believed Castro had killed Kennedy.

Unless LBJ KNEW Castro did not do it because he knew who did, there were plenty of reasons for him to suspect Cuban involvement. Whether those reasons were legitimate (i.e. Castro did it) or illegitimate (the conspirators framed Fidel) is irrelevant to this discussion. If LBJ feared that an investigation MIGHT produce evidence of Cuban involvement, then he had to limit the assassination to Oswald acting alone, even if it meant that the true conspirators would go free. For unless LBJ knew who did it, he feared a complete investigation might open a Pandora's box.

So if the true conspirators framed Fidel to prompt an invasion of Cuba, their plot backfired. If they framed Fidel thinking that would result in the cover-up, they accomplished their purpose. But why then did they kill Kennedy? Simply for revenge over the BOP? If indeed the plot was to link the assassination to Castro, I think it more likely the objective was to prompt a US invasion of Cuba and the LBJ cover-up surpised them.

If LBJ was not afraid of a nuclear war with Cuba, why did he not go along with the evidence pointing at Castro and use it as an excuse to get rid of Castro?

Edited March 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Al Carrier]

John,

Simply put, did not JFK resist an invasion for fear that it would invite a Soviet response?

Is it your position that the Soviet Union might have responded miliutarily had we invaded Cuba to get our missiles out but would not have responded militarily if we had invaded Cuba to get rid of Castro because we believed he had sponsored the assassination?

The fact that the United States did not respond to the Soviet suppression of popular uprisings in Hungary and Czechloslovakia (as we should have) does not mean the Soviet Union would not have responded militarily had we invaded Cuba to overthrow Fidel, who was by that time their client (remember Fidel and entourage had spent five weeks in the Soviet Union in the spring of 1963).

And again, Earl Warren did not feel that LBJ's concern over a nuclear war if a determination was made that Cuba had sponsored the assassination "daft".

You may speculate that LBJ's concern was feigned because he KNEW Castro did not do it but you cannot deny that intelligent, rational men such as Warren responded to the argument.

The results of a nuclear war would be cataclysmic.  It would be taking quite a gamble that the Soviet Union would not have responded to an invasion of Cuba merely because it was close to the United States and because we believed Castro had killed Kennedy.

Unless LBJ KNEW Castro did not do it because he knew who did, there were plenty of reasons for him to suspect Cuban involvement.  Whether those reasons were legitimate (i.e. Castro did it) or illegitimate (the conspirators framed Fidel) is irrelevant to this discussion.  If LBJ feared that an investigation MIGHT produce evidence of Cuban involvement, then he had to limit the assassination to Oswald acting alone, even if it meant that the true conspirators would go free.  For unless LBJ knew who did it, he feared a complete investigation might open a Pandora's box.

So if the true conspirators framed Fidel to prompt an invasion of Cuba, their plot backfired.  If they framed Fidel thinking that would result in the cover-up, they accomplished their purpose.  But why then did they kill Kennedy?  Simply for revenge over the BOP?  If indeed the plot was to link the assassination to Castro, I think it more likely the objective was to prompt a US invasion of Cuba and the LBJ cover-up surpised them.

If LBJ was not afraid of a nuclear war with Cuba, why did he not go along with the evidence pointing at Castro and use it as an excuse to get rid of Castro?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MY LAST POSTING ON AN ASSASSINATION FORUM:

Reality is rather simplistic if one follows history. Where we get confused is when we try to make links to what is being provided and when these links to failed operations of lower levels are made comparable to successful operations of higher magnitude. The Cuban Operation is no more comparable to the Kennedy Assassination than the mafia connection is. Neither is comparable in profile as the Cuban Operation dealt with rediculous plans involving derelict operatives (Cuban Exiles/SOF such as GPH) and mafia connections (Files, Mob Bosses such as MoMo, Santo, and the popular New Orleans Connection, where none have ever been showed to involve scoped rifle triangulations of fire for assassination), to show how rediculous these leads have become and taken up so much of active forum of research.

I have recently been taken back to over two decades of covert operational procedures that only further convinces me of what went down and who was operation in the elimination of our president. I have posted time and again on what the motive was and how it far supercedes what is overwhelming the forums on motive, and how such an operation is realistically pulled off. I am met with radical claims from those who not only do not understand this, but are already locked into their preconceived notions that they refuse to absorb it.

I originally remained silent for ten years of research and then went public through Prof. Fetzer when I found a common ground in research. I was sponsored by Fetzer to appear at Lancer NID 2001 and then later realized how Fetzer was promoting conspiracy through film alteration along with every other rediculous angle. I was an active member of Lancer until I saw how it allowed and supported rediculous research angles. I then became an active member of John Simkins Education Forum and was content that it allowed realistic research and monitored and removed offensive and radical threads and postings. In the past few months, even this forum has gotten so rediculous that it is no longer realistic in further research. As a 22 year veteran of LE, I no longer see where this forum is providing realistic issues that will further research and investigation into the cause and effect of the assassination of a great man as John Kennedy. I see moronic issues and connections being brought up that feeds on only deviating farther from the truth and corrupting what the relevance and respect that anyone who challenges the official findings holds.

Are we advancing some forty-plus years later? Review what is being posted and it is comparable to UFO sightings and Big Foot research in a court proceeding relation and see why the GP call us Conspiracy THEORISTS!!!

Sorry if I offend anyone. But it needs to be said!

Adios!!!

Al

[John Simkin]

Is it your position that the Soviet Union might have responded miliutarily had we invaded Cuba to get our missiles out but would not have responded militarily if we had invaded Cuba to get rid of Castro because we believed he had sponsored the assassination?

Exactly. An attempt to destroy Soviet missiles would of course led to a military conflict between the two sides. This would have been a very different operation from sending in troops to arrest “Castro”. I know that America is so powerful that it does not take any notice of world opinion. However, where JFK would have got very support for invading Cuba in order to remove someone else’s property, LBJ would have been seen very different if he sent in troops to arrest the man responsible for assassinating the president. The only problem is that the evidence would have had to have been good to justify such an action. As members know, this “good” evidence does not exist.

[John Simkin]

And again, Earl Warren did not feel that LBJ's concern over a nuclear war if a determination was made that Cuba had sponsored the assassination "daft".

You may speculate that LBJ's concern was feigned because he KNEW Castro did not do it but you cannot deny that intelligent, rational men such as Warren responded to the argument.

As someone who has several times have mentioned the importance of the LBJ tapes I am shocked by these comments. The tapes make it clear why Warren accepted the job. For example, here is part of the taped conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard B. Russell at 8.55 p.m on 29th November, 1963.

Richard Russell: I know I don't have to tell you of my devotion to you but I just can't serve on that Commission. I'm highly honoured you'd think about me in connection with it but I couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren. I don't like that man. I don't have any confidence in him at all.

Lyndon B. Johnson: It has already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and chuck us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour....

Richard Russell: I still feel it sort of getting wrapped up...

Lyndon B. Johnson: Dick... do you remember when you met me at the Carlton Hotel in 1952? When we had breakfast there one morning.

Richard Russell: Yes I think so.

Lyndon B. Johnson: All right. Do you think I'm kidding you?

Richard Russell: No... I don't think your kidding me, but I think... well, I'm not going to say anymore, Mr. President... I'm at your command... and I'll do anything you want me to do....

Lyndon B. Johnson: Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City and I say now, I don't want Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow (censored) and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow and that Castro killed him... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say.

As you can see both Russell and Warren were blackmailed into serving on the commission. I suspect most of the others were also recruited in the same way. This is of course the main way you can get a report that you want.

[Shanet Clark]

Makes you wonder what the CARLTON HOTEL 1952 meant to Richard Russell and Lyndon Johnson.

Remember, Richard Russell was single handedly in charge of intelligence and military intelligence oversight in the Senate, as committee and subcommittee chair of the key Senate committees. He knew more than any man alive about joint operations, programs and plans. He knew he was being asked to cover up one of runaway programs that had completely gotten away from any congressional oversight whatsoever.

He knew he was going to have to keep a straight face and protect his own life on this one.

>>>>>>>>>

Edited March 19, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark:

Have you read all of the tapes before you made this assessment?

I think you need to read all of the tapes before you can make an intelligent assessment if it was all just a game being played.  The latter does not make sense because there was no plan to release them.  So the idea that LBJ was just acting so he could use the tapes to prove he was innocent makes no sense.

I believe LBJ was a crook.  I believed that in 1964.  But he did not kill Kennedy.  The tapes help demonstrate that.

Read the tapes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim

I confess I haven't read all the LBJ tapes. Far from it. From my research of the assassination (which is only a few books and movies, I admit) there seems to be a consistent line of behavior concerning LBJ. He was a fixer, a backroom dealer. Not a crime, of course, but here's a brief sample of some of LBJ's stunts;

1. How he "earned" his Blue Star (that's a beauty)

2. His odd behaviour after the assassination.

3. the Coke Stevenson controversy.

4. Bobbie Baker.

5. His savage smearing of Kennedy prior to the 1960 nomination (telling Ike that JFK was a "dangerous man") and then suddenly accepting the VP ticket with this "dangerous man".

6. His choice of personnel for WC. (He initially favored a Texas inquiry--loud guffaws)

Are we kids or what?

I never said LBJ killed JFK. He would'nt have had the nerve. Instead, I believe he dropped a subtle hint here and there, among the powerful people with whom he was associated, that while Kennedy opposes their ideas, he does not. And he surely knew about it in advance.

[Pat Speer]

Are we advancing some forty-plus years later? Review what is being posted and it is comparable to UFO sightings and Big Foot research in a court proceeding relation and see why the GP call us Conspiracy THEORISTS!!!

Sorry if I offend anyone. But it needs to be said!

Adios!!!

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al, you're absolutely right that there are a lot of theorists who are more intrigued by the incredible than are interested in the plausible, but that only adds to my conviction that rational thinkers are needed, here as on other forums. We live in a world where more people believe in angels than in God, without ever stopping to realize that the existence of angels requires the existence of God.

[Pat Speer]

John,

And again, Earl Warren did not feel that LBJ's concern over a nuclear war if a determination was made that Cuba had sponsored the assassination "daft".

You may speculate that LBJ's concern was feigned because he KNEW Castro did not do it but you cannot deny that intelligent, rational men such as Warren responded to the argument.

The results of a nuclear war would be cataclysmic.  It would be taking quite a gamble that the Soviet Union would not have responded to an invasion of Cuba merely because it was close to the United States and because we believed Castro had killed Kennedy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After reading the April 30, 1964 Executive Session of the Warren Commission, I'm no longer sure about Warren. In that session he agreed to the necessity of a Commission member and a doctor examining the autopsy photos. And yet this was not done. McCloy in his HSCA testimony blamed Warren. Either Warren stopped the examination because he was an overly-sentimental fool who was worried about upsetting the Kennedys, who had said the photos could be viewed if necessary, or he was worried the examination of the photos would take the investigation down an avenue he couldn't control. I now find it easier to believe Warren participated in a cover-up than that he was completely unqualified to lead an investigation. His comments in his memoirs that the Clark Panel confirmed the Warren Commission's interpretation of the wounds is the height of deceptive polito-speak. He was a politician, first and foremost--maybe he was swayed by fears LBJ would unleash a nuclear arsenal--maybe LBJ told him he would do as much. I find the scenario that Warren was afraid of what LBJ might do (if the evidence pointed at him) more plausible than the scenario that he was scared of what the Russians might do (if the evidence pointed at them).

There is no getting around it: either Warren was an incompetent or a participant in a cover-up. And if he covered-up, either he did it out of fear of LBJ or fear of the Russians. If he allowed the Russians to get away with the crime, what assurance would he have had that they wouldn't just turn around and kill LBJ, or all of congress? Therefore, his covering for LBJ after LBJ threatened to use all the powers of the Presidency to protect himself, including perhaps the distraction of starting a nuclear war, makes a lot more sense. Which sounds more reasonable to you?

Edited March 20, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

We live in a world where more people believe in angels than in God, without ever stopping to realize that the existence of angels requires the existence of God.

Pat, a very interesting statement. Do you actually have the statistics re the percentage of people who believe in angels but not God? You are correct, of course, that this is irrational. And your comment re the need for rational thinkers is important as well. I want to say that I am impressed by the intelligence and fervor of most of the members of this Forum and it is defintely a learning experience. There is so much material re the assassination, it is difficult to read and master even most of the books on it, unless perhaps you spend full time on it. That is the beauty of the "collective wisdom" that John has put together and cultivated in this Forum.

[Mark Stapleton]

John,

And again, Earl Warren did not feel that LBJ's concern over a nuclear war if a determination was made that Cuba had sponsored the assassination "daft".

You may speculate that LBJ's concern was feigned because he KNEW Castro did not do it but you cannot deny that intelligent, rational men such as Warren responded to the argument.

The results of a nuclear war would be cataclysmic.  It would be taking quite a gamble that the Soviet Union would not have responded to an invasion of Cuba merely because it was close to the United States and because we believed Castro had killed Kennedy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After reading the April 30, 1964 Executive Session of the Warren Commission, I'm no longer sure about Warren. In that session he agreed to the necessity of a Commission member and a doctor examining the autopsy photos. And yet this was not done. McCloy in his HSCA testimony blamed Warren. Either Warren stopped the examination because he was an overly-sentimental fool who was worried about upsetting the Kennedys, who had said the photos could be viewed if necessary, or he was worried the examination of the photos would take the investigation down an avenue he couldn't control. I now find it easier to believe Warren participated in a cover-up than that he was completely unqualified to lead an investigation. His comments in his memoirs that the Clark Panel confirmed the Warren Commission's interpretation of the wounds is the height of deceptive polito-speak. He was a politician, first and foremost--maybe he was swayed by fears LBJ would unleash a nuclear arsenal--maybe LBJ told him he would do as much. I find the scenario that Warren was afraid of what LBJ might do (if the evidence pointed at him) more plausible than the scenario that he was scared of what the Russians might do (if the evidence pointed at them).

There is no getting around it: either Warren was an incompetent or a participant in a cover-up. And if he covered-up, either he did it out of fear of LBJ or fear of the Russians. If he allowed the Russians to get away with the crime, what assurance would he have had that they wouldn't just turn around and kill LBJ, or all of congress? Therefore, his covering for LBJ after LBJ threatened to use all the powers of the Presidency to protect himself, including perhaps the distraction of starting a nuclear war, makes a lot more sense. Which sounds more reasonable to you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat,

I think Earl Warren was simply following his riding instructions (from LBJ). Namely, OSWALD DID IT FULL STOP. Whether he feared the Russians is irrelevant. His boss gave him a job and he carried it out.