David G. Healy Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 TGratz wrote: [...] Gee, Mark, I guess it just comes down to good old common sense and everyday experience: a person does not kill his friend. _________________ Thank GOD you're not a historian - then again most published historians dropped the ball regarding DP events and the follow-on WCReport, so, maybe you ARE a historian... ALL plowed ground, folks! I don't think John F. Kennedy had many 'friends' other than his immediate family, next the immediate Irish Mafia. Next in order of importance: the political allies pal's - croonies (which I suspect, leigon), finally the hangeroner's and the gal's, most of the latter wishing for that elusive PRESIDENTAL friendship... Who actually believes Wall Street isn't one phone call to the president? Did Joe Sr. intro Dillion to JFK? Did Dillion head to the Cape to throw the ball around on weekends? Was he treated as a peer, ally or a politically expedient guy. What did Dillion have that Kennedy needed, in friendship? maybe references for a good 'broker', perhaps? I suspect any Dillion friendship (tenuious at best) may of been with Joe Sr., not JFK. Joe Sr. as the initial head SEC makes, well, more sense... Concerning the use of good old "common sense" -- well, with a conservative dose of same, figure another 40+ years before anyone gets to the bottom of this cold blooded murder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Bernice, Another fine post. If the MIC was responsible for the assassination, it's de facto hold on Government has only tightened in the intervening years. The defence budget this year is, I believe, $480B (up from $430B last year). One question. If, as you argue, the Ultra Right/Texas oil failed to possess enough influence to carry out the assassination on their own, is it not possible they may have formed a co-operative "joint venture" with the MIC in order to achieve this? The reason I ask is that, to me, the fact that it was carried out in Dallas is too much of a coincidence for those groups (they may well be one and the same) to be uninvolved. The other thing for me is LBJ. As Ron points out, the timing of the hit was just too good to be true for him. His background also condemns him. The counter arguments forwarded by WC supporters are coincidence (Re Dallas) and coincidence (Re LBJ) to which I would reply "crap" (Re Dallas) and "crap" (Re LBJ). Hoover's involvement in the coverup is an historical certainty by now. Boggs said "he lied his eyes out" to the Commission. I agree that JFK would probably not have retired him, although he would have loved to--he had too much dirt on everyone. It's likely every pre 1972 President feared him, with good reason. The problem, IMO, was that he was elevated to Chief when he was too young, making his tenure almost a half century dynasty--a mistake they would never repeat, IMO. Thanks again for a great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 TGratz wrote:[...] Gee, Mark, I guess it just comes down to good old common sense and everyday experience: a person does not kill his friend. _________________ Thank GOD you're not a historian - then again most published historians dropped the ball regarding DP events and the follow-on WCReport, so, maybe you ARE a historian... ALL plowed ground, folks! I don't think John F. Kennedy had many 'friends' other than his immediate family, next the immediate Irish Mafia. Next in order of importance: the political allies pal's - croonies (which I suspect, leigon), finally the hangeroner's and the gal's, most of the latter wishing for that elusive PRESIDENTAL friendship... Who actually believes Wall Street isn't one phone call to the president? Did Joe Sr. intro Dillion to JFK? Did Dillion head to the Cape to throw the ball around on weekends? Was he treated as a peer, ally or a politically expedient guy. What did Dillion have that Kennedy needed, in friendship? maybe references for a good 'broker', perhaps? I suspect any Dillion friendship (tenuious at best) may of been with Joe Sr., not JFK. Joe Sr. as the initial head SEC makes, well, more sense... Concerning the use of good old "common sense" -- well, with a conservative dose of same, figure another 40+ years before anyone gets to the bottom of this cold blooded murder... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David, I agree. The naivety of Tim's statement is incredible. His hysterical overreaction to the mere suggestion of Dillon's foreknowledge only reinforces my suspicions. While Dillon was obviously a family friend, they were from opposing political tribes, ostensibly with different support bases and they were two decades apart in age but he's got them as blood brothers. Dear oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 (edited) Thankyou Mark Stapleton: You asked: Mark:""One question. If, as you argue, the Ultra Right/Texas oil failed to possess enough influence to carry out the assassination on their own, is it not possible they may have formed a co-operative "joint venture" with the MIC in order to achieve this? The reason I ask is that, to me, the fact that it was carried out in Dallas is too much of a coincidence for those groups (they may well be one and the same) to be uninvolved. The other thing for me is LBJ. As Ron points out, the timing of the hit was just too good to be true for him. His background also condemns him. The counter arguments forwarded by WC supporters are coincidence (Re Dallas) and coincidence (Re LBJ) to which I would reply "crap" (Re Dallas) and "crap" (Re LBJ)."" I had posted: ""Did Texas oil think they had a reasonable motive for wanting JFK removed from office ? Yes..to protect it's economics ,not to mention their general displeasure at Kennedy's liberal policies.. Did Texas Oil have the power...and resources to kill a President ?? Obviously it lacked nothing that money could buy...it's weath could have bought the finest hitmen in the business of assassination..and place one of Texas' own at the pinnacle of power...Could they have manipulated the cover-up, to some extent ..No doubt it carried a lot of weight on Captiol Hill and could have and more than likely did influence the Johnson WH to some extent..But, it would have taken much more than money to have bought the FBI ,the CIA,the military ,the Secret Service and certain hig goverment officials...it seems impossible..... Could they have been powerful enough to have commanded or persuaded some of the highest officials in the land..to perjure themselves,before the American public. The oil men lacked this kind of influence to pressure some leaders to lie and conceal the truth...some were too honest and stubborn perhaps, to be bought off... While some could have provided financial support of the assassination operations , the Texas Oil did lack the power to carry out both phases ...the assassination and the Cover-Up...."" Here are more What If's for you Mark .. I think that perhaps the Oil Barons, could have supplied all monies needed for all minions and anything needed to be used, to have the assassination completed...then watched as H.L.Hunt did from his seventh story office as the motorcade drove by.....this is where, the" follow the money thought" does come into all this.... they could have bought and paid for the best snipers the world had available...men whose profession was a target..and then simply disappeared into history...they were readily available...In that way money wise, I agree it is a possibility... But on another train of thought why would "they" need to use anyones money ?...if the MIC did murder their commander in chief....there was access to millions readily available, from a Pentagon source....business whatever .....( what was it they were paying around $700.00 for a screw driver at the time...??? in reality the extra $695...went into the slush fund??)..I don't think money would be a problem....in some ways...I don't think "oil" would have had to be involved in anyway...?? Mark:""The reason I ask is that, to me, the fact that it was carried out in Dallas is too much of a coincidence for those groups (they may well be one and the same) to be uninvolved. The other thing for me is LBJ. As Ron points out, the timing of the hit was just too good to be true for him. His background also condemns him"" Yes, I agree definitely the timing was too good, and wasn't it so convenient that Dallas was chosen, extreme Right Wing, and also wasn't it convenient that Chicago, and Florida, failed with the planned attempts in those cities...more coincidence...?? Is it all too convenient as Ron points out ( great thought Ron )...this is what bothers me and has for a long time.....all just too coincidental.... LBJ...is going to jail...if JFK is still in office, or in the least his career is over and reputation in smitherines...the oil depletion allowance in Texas is being drastically cut..., "King Oil" profits being reduced.....it occurrs in Dallas,Texas the foremost right wing city in the state, at the time,in the country......there is going to be detente with the Communists, Russia, and with Castro, no take over...no invasion that the anti Cubans were desperate for..( which there wasn't in any case ).....no return of the island to the Mafia and their cohorts.....and from what I have been able to read...no Vietnam....and the dismantling of the CIA...I am sure I have forgotten other reasons, but on the top of the list, another Kennedy administration being voted in, possibily the next November..for another 4 years...then possibly Robert??..things were looking pretty good....in a lot of ways.. All just too coincidental, isn't it.....and as we see also.....and the one man who was and would be responsible for all the above, just happened to be the one man murdered that day in Dallas....the President...ruddy amazing... Who have been blamed, and held responsible, by many:? 1..L.B.J..and Texas Oil Men 2..Castro: Communists.. 3..Russia: Communists.. 4..Anti Castro movement.. 5..Right Wing extremists.. 6..CIA.. 7..Military.. 9..Mafia.. 8.. a Patsy..LHO or a man by any other given name that would have served the purpose..a disturbed lone assassin. It is just so convenient that the assassination took place in Dallas, LBJ's home state, home of the extreme right wingers...and "King Oil"..and that there is information and documentation leading to such... It is also covenient that there appears to be information leading to the possibility of a Castro, Communist involvement..and possibly information leading to a Russian involvement... It is also very convenient that there also appears to be information leading to, and photos of look-a- likes, present in Dealey, of some anti-cubanites-some right wingers-and some military presence...It is so convenient it is amazing, at times to me...and makes me question the why?? as I seem to continually do ...it seems just too pat in some ways....?? Whose left ?? Whose not mentioned ? Industrial-Business ? Money Power people, Bankers?..What if they connected with the Intelligence and the Pentagon ????? IF ?? then we would have a MIC...possibley...who would have all the power they would ever need to create and carry out and cover-up such a slaughter...all these years...?? enough power to twist anyones arm....?? It all seems to be like so, invisible in some ways...like transparent ?? as if all was planned in such a way,as to confuse and contradict all else, each piece deliberatley, so that nothing would ever be solveable down through history....almost as if there was a grand schematic on a huge drafting table, all laid out, connecting all the dots to each other, so that one leads to the other continually and conveniently , to lead all researchers, historians continually in a circle.....and it works...???? What if, this what I call, Industrial-Business-Money-Power people, Bankers.?( for use of a better name) Used the intelligence world-who would then use their connections and power to the military (and thereby being able to use anyone and anything they possibley needed)( and thereby framing and connecting all to the assassination, in some way, to create complete deliberate confusion) and by committing such a deliberate invisible, transparent assassination... gaining full control over the politics ,government, it's people,and the most powerful country in the world..the United Sates...and in doing so framing all other groups, that any of the information, evidence, and documentation seems to lead to??? Leading to all the confusion we see each and every day in this grand scam of things..that they could have possibley perpetuated so brilliantly...????? I know a lot of what if's? I am just trying to think out of the box as they say ,here, as there are simply just too many convenient , coincidential , connections to all...and I have absolutely no answers, and nothing definite I can say positively....sorry... Thanks for the come back and thoughts and your kind remarks re the posts.... B.. Edited June 11, 2005 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Mark wrote:Your meretricious display in posting 18 questions fools no-one. It only shows that you deserve a Bachelor's Degree in irrelevant information. Gee, Mark, does it surprise me that you were not able to answer a single one of my questions? What is most interesting is that you characterize the information as "irrelevant" At least Mr. Charles-Dunne realizes why the information is so damning which is why he fights it so hard. Actually, you're entirely wrong in this, Tim. I agree wholeheartedly with Mark that what you've posted to date is "irrelevant." If you'd like to make it relevant, you might start by posting actual "evidence" instead of a crazy-quilt review of sixteen books from which you've cherry-picked only what suits you. A good start would be to post the documents that you claim are so incendiary, yet apparently have never actually seen with your own two eyes. Thus far, I've yet to see anything "damning" in any of your posts, but will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. You find it "irrelevant" if agents of Castro's intelligence service were in Dealey Plaza? Now, Tim: why is the word "if" in the above sentence. You insist daily that there were Castro agents in Dealey Plaza, and yet now use this qualifier. Why? If there is persuasive evidence for your contention, then please post it. If not, or if you refuse to do so, could you please refrain from being quite so insistent? That you would characterize that as irrelevant more than adequately demonstrates who the ostrich is. At least Mr. Charles-Dunne recognizes how damning that information is, if true. Again, the inclusion of the qualifier "if true" at the very end of the rant. "If true." Indeed. You assert daily that it is true, but now seem somewhat less cocksure. Are you changing gears, Tim? By your standard, if someone had caught Fidel holding a recently discharged rifle standing behind the picket fence that would be irrelevant. Your apparent idea of "proof" is to suggest that one of Dillon's friends in the banking community asked him to kill his friend JFK and Dillon's response was: "Sure. Why not? I like you better then him anyway." And then ask me how I know that did NOT happen. That is just so preposterous it boggles the mind. I might as well ask you how you know your uncle did not kill Kennedy. I am sticking my head in the sand because I cannot acknowledge that a law-abiding citizen and patriotic American would not agree to participate in a plot to kill his friend the president. This is so absurd it is pathetic. And so is your attitude that it bothers you not to accuse people of murder most foul with no evidence whatsoever. Frankly, Mark, it is attitudes like yours that discredit the assassination research committee and that is unfortunate because there are many people who unselfishly spend substantial time actually researching and attempting to solve the assassination. Actually, Tim, I think it's demonstrable the greatest disservice done to the research community is committed by those who go off half-cocked railing about half-baked theories, refuse to cite any actual "evidence," claim as "evidence" documents they've never seen but nevertheless accept second or third hand at face value, and read whatever they choose to into documents that don't sustain their conclusions. Those people invariably end up being laughed at, and the well-deserved ridicule they earn for themselves invariably impeaches world-class researchers who don't share those flaws. I've asked you, invited you, begged you and even demanded that you finally cite the documentary evidence you think is such incendiary proof of Castro's personal culpability. Perhaps, in the interests of salvaging what little credibility you seem to have here, you might actually consider doing it? The alternative is to continue on your current path and thereby render yourself as "irrelevant" as your posts to date in this regard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 The following are two of my questions to Mark and the reply is from Robert Charles-Dunne:(8) Do you admit that there was a close relationship between Trafficante and Rolando Cubela, and that Cubela in fact helped Trafficante get out of Trescornia? (By golly, I hope you know what Trescornia was. If not, let me know.) Proof? How do we know that McWillie, Ruby, Guiseppe di Giorgio, or other possible intermediaries didn't play a role in this? (9) Do you admit that Trafficante perjured himself before the House Select Committee on Assassinations by denying a relationship with Cubela? Proof? Mr. Charles-Dunne, there is no way I want to impugn your motivation here but I assumed you were well-read enough to know the answers to these questions. And, with ineluctable predictability, Tim yet again fails to post any actual evidence. Asked for proof of two of his assertions, we again see Tim reply: "What? You mean you don't know what I've heretofore consistently refused to post?" I do not know where I first read about the close relationship between Trafficante and Cubela When your memory is refreshed, please do advise us of where you "first" read it. but I do know it was confirmed by Escalante at the conference in the Bahamas. Sigh. Tim, this is growing dramatically tedious. First you would have us believe that Escalante was in Dallas on 11/22/63 as part of the Cuban hit team that you claim killed Kennedy [albeit without anything approaching proof.] Now you are perfectly happy to accept Escalante's word that a man recruited by CIA to kill Castro was close to Trafficante. [Apparently, Cubela was getting quite "close" to CIA personnel too. Does that mean CIA killed Kennedy too? If Cubela had any other friends, are they suspects too? Gee, maybe Cubela knew Dougie Dillon...] You accept Escalante's word in this instance, while at the same time repeatedly reassuring us that we must disbelieve anything and everything that Escalante says because, "good God, he was in Dallas that day!" It seems unlikely that you can have it both ways. So, which is it to be? The transcript of his remarks (and specifically re Cubela's close relationship with Trafficante) is available at the cuban-exile website. And of course Trafficante's denial of any relationship with Cubela is in his testimony before the HSCA, readily available on-line. So, I ask again, for only the umpteenth time, what do you have that disproves Trafficante's denial? Only Escalante's word, apparently. The same Escalante you have repeatedly asserted is unworthy of our trust. Surely, your posts cannot possibly get any more bizarre.... So you can easily verify my statements. I assume you will do so and admit that those two points are proved. Dream on. If you'd like those two points considered "proved," try actually proving them. Using Escalante as your witness against Trafficante is a rather bone-headed move, since you've repeatedly insisted Escalante's word is worthless. Except in this highly selective instance, of course. I do consider Trafficante's perjury before the HSCA significant (as you know, he also, incredibly, denied under oath any involvement in the plots against Castro). Well, that places him squarely in the company of various CIA personnel who dissembled at great length on the same topic. They, presumably, were merely trying to protect their Agency. Perhaps Trafficante was merely the same kind of patriotic American, the type you seem more inclined to salute than suspect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I wrote:It is far more important to me that people who actually worked on JFK's Cuban policy, Joseph Califano and Alexander Haig, and lived through those times, believe that Castro probably did it, than what anyone who has only "second-hand" knowledge, believes. Robert Charles-Dunne replied: Were there any degree of unanimity among Kennedy's Cabinet members and advisers regarding Castro's culpability, it would certainly strengthen your case. Yet, of all the people in Kennedy's inner circle, apparently only two junior members of the entourage share your pet theory. Either Kennedy was killed by Castro and only two people in the inner sanctum were bright enough to realize it, or there was a blatant attempt to fabricate false "evidence" of Castro's culpability, and only two people in Kennedy's entourage were too dim to see through the ruse. Well, sir, in terms of unanimity, can you name a SINGLE member of Kennedy's administration who has publicly written advocating a sponsor other than Castro? Am I correct that the ONLY members of the Kennedy Administration who have gone "on the record" with their opinion of who the master conspirator was are Califano and Haig? To the best of my knowledge, yes. Unfortunately, this fails to make your point. If more members of the Cabinet/inner-sanctum-advisers agreed with either man, they would presumably have also gone on the record. That they haven't done so indicates how weak the evidence is, or how weak was the reasoning of those who have reached your conclusion. And what about John F. Kennedy, Jr.? Although he never publicly advocated a position, his magazine "George" did publish a piece by Edward J. Epstein re the Cubela caper which was consistent with a "Castro did it" scenario. Also, as I am sure you know, Califano and Haig were the members of the Kennedy administration who, together with Cyrus Vance, were responsible for implementing the Kennedy Cuban policy. And what does Vance say? Does he support the Castro-did-it conclusion? So while neither may have held the "rank" as high as say the Postmaster General they were the ones most knowledgeable about the Cuban policy. Well, you have a consistently interesting cast of "experts" to call upon. I don't know that these men were necessarily the "most knowledgeable about Cuban policy," but they were certainly beavering away to get rid of Castro, and to blame him for heinous acts that the US itself planned to commit; treasonous acts - ala Northwoods - that called for murdering US civilians if necessary, in order to provide a pretext for invading Cuba and deposing Castro. [say, you don't suppose that they're using bogus fibs about Castro's culpability in the events of Dallas to continue their tilting at the Cuban windmill, do you?] While I don't necessarily consider Max Holland to be an objective source of information on anything, the following excerpts from his work illustrate just how admirable and trustworthy we should consider your boys Haig and Califano. And, if you keep reading, you'll see he has similarly interesting things to say about your "source" for the Escalante-was-in-Dallas fable, Marty Underwood. Enjoy, Tim... Consider instead the records from a long-forgotten, obscure entity called the Interdepartmental Coordinating Committee on Cuban Affairs (ICCCA). The public is seldom privy to the give-and-take of frequently pivotal, ad hoc task forces. Interagency deliberations have their own special exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. Acting on a tip, however, the ARRB located the records of the Defense Department's executive agent for all ICCCA meetings in 1962/63. He was the Secretary of the Army, a fellow named Cyrus Vance. His special assistant, Joseph Califano, frequently represented Vance at ICCCA meetings and participated in all policy deliberations, as did Vance's military aide, Army Maj. Alexander Haig. Reading through these records one learns how three future Cabinet officials, including two secretaries of state, partook in deliberations over how to create a real or simulated incident--blowing up vessels, shooting down an airliner--that would provide Washington with the pretext necessary to invade Cuba in 1962, seeing as how another invasion by exiles was out of the question. Concurrently, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared their own notions of what a usable "Sink the Maine" scenario might look like. Planting arms in a Caribbean country and sending in jets painted to look like Cuban MIGs was one idea. Blaming Havana for the failure of John Glenn's Mercury flight, if it failed, was another brainstorm. Apparently, the entire national security apparatus went mad with near-criminal schemes to get rid of Castro after the Bay of Pigs. It isn't only the myth-makers who have reason to be concerned about the Assassination Records Review Board's papers neatly shelved at the National Archives. Kennedy-bashers, who would replace one false portrait with another, have inconvenient documents to contend with too. In particular, Seymour Hersh, the investigative historian who demanded to be judged not on the forgeries he left out of his book The Dark Side of Camelot (1997) but by what he left in, has something to answer for. In Dark Side, Hersh writes that 1960 Democratic nominee Kennedy paid off Chicago mobster Sam Giancana during one phase of a scheme to steal the election. The first source cited for this allegation is Judith Exner (née Campbell), who claims to have carried approximately $250,000 in "two satchels full of cash" from "Jack to Sam." Suffice it to say that since 1975, when Exner's relationship with the President became public, her liaison with him has become ever more elaborate and her own importance elevated with every telling. Perhaps recognizing that Exner's credibility is wanting, given the suspicious expansion of her story over time, the resourceful Hersh found a corroborating source, Martin Underwood, an advance man for the Democratic nominee. Underwood told Hersh that one day in April 1960, JFK aide Ken O'Donnell ordered him to follow Exner's every movement on a train from Washington to Chicago. The problem with this corroboration is that it's a pack of lies. The review board pursued the allegation and other tall assassination-related tales told by Underwood, and the former advance man recanted them all when sitting across from a government lawyer instead of a reporter. Underwood "denied that he followed Judith Campbell Exner on a train," the ARRB report observes on page 136, "and [said] that he had no knowledge about her alleged role as a courier." Rudimentary research on Hersh's part should have demonstrated Underwood's penchant for telling reporters what they want to hear. Other interviews of Underwood, as in a lengthy profile that appeared in the Washington Post on August 8, 1971, convey contradictory facts, including the detail that Underwood met O'Donnell for the first time ever in September 1960. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Mark wrote: I agree. The naivety of Tim's statement is incredible. His hysterical overreaction to the mere suggestion of Dillon's foreknowledge only reinforces my suspicions. While Dillon was obviously a family friend, they were from opposing political tribes, ostensibly with different support bases and they were two decades apart in age but he's got them as blood brothers. Dear oh dear. ___________ Mark, Let me join with another -- you ever get to Las Vegas or the Reno-Tahoe let me know, dinner is on me! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Mark wrote:I agree. The naivety of Tim's statement is incredible. His hysterical overreaction to the mere suggestion of Dillon's foreknowledge only reinforces my suspicions. While Dillon was obviously a family friend, they were from opposing political tribes, ostensibly with different support bases and they were two decades apart in age but he's got them as blood brothers. Dear oh dear. ___________ Mark, Let me join with another -- you ever get to Las Vegas or the Reno-Tahoe let me know, dinner is on me! David <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David, Thanks for that. I was in Vegas in '98. Great weather. Memorable town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Well OK, having worked with electromechanical and computerized phoneswitches and taught switching systems and traffic / load engineering for a few years, a couple of thoughts occur to me. First, you tie up individual building switches (PABX's), or individual office switches (key systems) or local telco exchanges or local or long distance trunks. You can shut them down of course but that's not all that easy and there is no on/off switch -you would have to do a lot of manual work or more likely just shut down the power to the system(s) in question. And that would be at lots of local exchanges and trunk/transmission facilities. Everyone who has read Seven Days in May will require that the bad guys were training a whole strike force just to take over communications in D.C.....and much of that was going to happen by taking over long distance relay facilities. The problem is that as far as a given number of users are concerned, you would have the same appearance (the phone system is down) if their individual PABX, Key System, Local Exchange, or destination trunk facilities were busy. The net result of all of it is either no dial tone or most likely a fast busy There are a couple of fairly easy "saturation" things that can happen, for example everyone around the country could start placing calls to destinations in D.C. that are served by a couple of exchanges - at the same time a fair number of folks in those exchanges try to call each other or call out (gets worse with lots of folks calling and nobody answering because they are tied up with the news). At that point in time most of the switching equipment was mechanical and some of it actually used the same relays to place and hold the call. Not that hard to tie it up with a spike in calls being placed or received for that matter. Even today with computerized switching that has much better loading capability, its still possible to run into fast busys during a major event - and it only gets better when enough people tire out and stop trying to place calls. Bottom line, an observation like the saying DC System telephone system went down requires a lot more detail - a person in one of the Bell switching control centers could say that because they would be monitoring switches, trunks and traffic. Or individuals might say it if they they simply encountered busy signals. The key would be knowing who, when and where felt the system was down. And by the way, if it truly were down due to some planned action, there should be a number of telephone traffic people not only in D.C. but in other regional control centers who would have observed how and when it went down - and came back for that matter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Larry, The failure of the DC phone system seems like another one of those coincidences. From my reading of your post and the earlier post of Robert Charles-Dunne, I gather that there are two possibilities: 1. It was accidental, coincidental or 2. It was contrived. (I'm a genius) If it was the latter, the military is most likely the party responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 And without some details on the actual failure its hard to say more. It would be relatively easy to isolate commercial traffic at least for a time by taking out or seizing long distance relay (long lines) facilities. Of course that becomes a bit of a trick to cover up afterwards. But if you want to actually take control of local calls within an exchange or local calls among DC exchanges it calls for a lot more visibility. I'm afraid this one is like some of the other frequently discussed incidents (the LBJ leaflets in Miami for example) that gets widely repeated without much source info or background on the incident itself. But if anybody can dig up some detail I'd sure love to see it. -- Larry Well OK, having worked with electromechanical and computerized phoneswitches and taught switching systems and traffic / load engineering for a few years, a couple of thoughts occur to me. First, you tie up individual building switches (PABX's), or individual office switches (key systems) or local telco exchanges or local or long distance trunks. You can shut them down of course but that's not all that easy and there is no on/off switch -you would have to do a lot of manual work or more likely just shut down the power to the system(s) in question. And that would be at lots of local exchanges and trunk/transmission facilities. Everyone who has read Seven Days in May will require that the bad guys were training a whole strike force just to take over communications in D.C.....and much of that was going to happen by taking over long distance relay facilities. The problem is that as far as a given number of users are concerned, you would have the same appearance (the phone system is down) if their individual PABX, Key System, Local Exchange, or destination trunk facilities were busy. The net result of all of it is either no dial tone or most likely a fast busy There are a couple of fairly easy "saturation" things that can happen, for example everyone around the country could start placing calls to destinations in D.C. that are served by a couple of exchanges - at the same time a fair number of folks in those exchanges try to call each other or call out (gets worse with lots of folks calling and nobody answering because they are tied up with the news). At that point in time most of the switching equipment was mechanical and some of it actually used the same relays to place and hold the call. Not that hard to tie it up with a spike in calls being placed or received for that matter. Even today with computerized switching that has much better loading capability, its still possible to run into fast busys during a major event - and it only gets better when enough people tire out and stop trying to place calls. Bottom line, an observation like the saying DC System telephone system went down requires a lot more detail - a person in one of the Bell switching control centers could say that because they would be monitoring switches, trunks and traffic. Or individuals might say it if they they simply encountered busy signals. The key would be knowing who, when and where felt the system was down. And by the way, if it truly were down due to some planned action, there should be a number of telephone traffic people not only in D.C. but in other regional control centers who would have observed how and when it went down - and came back for that matter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Larry, The failure of the DC phone system seems like another one of those coincidences. From my reading of your post and the earlier post of Robert Charles-Dunne, I gather that there are two possibilities: 1. It was accidental, coincidental or 2. It was contrived. (I'm a genius) If it was the latter, the military is most likely the party responsible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 If the DC phone system failure was contrived, why did they wait till 2 o'clock (EST), when JFK was pronounced dead? (This is the timing of the failure given in Manchester.) Seems like they would have moved as soon as word got out that JFK was shot, i.e. right after 1:30 EST. (And the conspirators knew, of course, at Z313 that JFK was dead, they didn't have to wait for some doctor to say so half an hour later). If the purpose was to shut down communication during this crisis period, they let a lot of communication go on for half an hour before they shut it down. Why would they do that? It's not that an earlier shutdown would look too suspicious, since they could still claim overload as the problem. I'm sure that an unusual number of calls started being made right after the shooting, to pass the word and try to get news. So why did they wait half an hour? (Why not 10 or 15 minutes at the most?) Whatever kind of communication they were trying to prevent (and what exactly was that?) could have already been made before they chose to act. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Martell Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 TGratz wrote:[...] Gee, Mark, I guess it just comes down to good old common sense and everyday experience: a person does not kill his friend. _________________ Thank GOD you're not a historian - then again most published historians dropped the ball regarding DP events and the follow-on WCReport, so, maybe you ARE a historian... ALL plowed ground, folks! I don't think John F. Kennedy had many 'friends' other than his immediate family, next the immediate Irish Mafia. Next in order of importance: the political allies pal's - croonies (which I suspect, leigon), finally the hangeroner's and the gal's, most of the latter wishing for that elusive PRESIDENTAL friendship... Who actually believes Wall Street isn't one phone call to the president? Did Joe Sr. intro Dillion to JFK? Did Dillion head to the Cape to throw the ball around on weekends? Was he treated as a peer, ally or a politically expedient guy. What did Dillion have that Kennedy needed, in friendship? maybe references for a good 'broker', perhaps? I suspect any Dillion friendship (tenuious at best) may of been with Joe Sr., not JFK. Joe Sr. as the initial head SEC makes, well, more sense... Concerning the use of good old "common sense" -- well, with a conservative dose of same, figure another 40+ years before anyone gets to the bottom of this cold blooded murder... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David, I agree. The naivety of Tim's statement is incredible. His hysterical overreaction to the mere suggestion of Dillon's foreknowledge only reinforces my suspicions. While Dillon was obviously a family friend, they were from opposing political tribes, ostensibly with different support bases and they were two decades apart in age but he's got them as blood brothers. Dear oh dear. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I like the ignore feature on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 (edited) Mark, replying to your post #84. Yes, indeed there are "crimes of passion" but I certainly think we can ALL agree that November 22nd was not a "crime of passion". Had JFK been killed while he was caught in fragante delicto with Mrs. Dillon, then, yes, then Dillon would be a suspect. Even if it was reported that JFK had been romantically involved with Mrs. Dillon then he might be a suspect, since he would then have a motive. I am aware of no reports ever linking JFK to Mrs Dillon however. Dillon had no motive. November 22nd, I think we can all agree, was a political crime and not a crime of passion. Edited June 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 G. David Healey wrote: While Dillon was obviously a family friend, they were from opposing political tribes, ostensibly with different support bases and they were two decades apart in age but he's got them as blood brothers. Dear oh dear. Which makes it obvious that Mr. Healy, like Mark, has not read Sorenson's biography of JFK. From Sorenson's POV, Dillon was one of JFK's closest friends and one of the Cabinet members whose counsel he most respected. I think John should require as a condition of posting on this forum that posters have read at least the basic biographies of JFK: certainly Sorenson and Scheslinger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now