Stan Wilbourne

deleted

deleted

Here's how I think the assassination may have happened: Kennedy had an array of enemies. A president always does. Each faction of enemies was used in some way in the plot to kill him. That way, the dog continually chases its tail. Research never gets very far. Or, at least, moves very, very slowly. The Mafia Texas Anti-Castro Cubans The Military The CIA Researchers see someone involved from one of these groups (or others) and wrongly conclude that is who ordered the murder. But, I think those that gave the order to kill JFK were insulated and removed themselves from the actual process of carrying out his assassination. It's the old magician's trick of having the audience watch the right hand while the left performs the "magic". Now, what was the most powerful element in the US in 1963? Who was the most powerful man of that element? Was it/he at odds with Kennedy? Over what? Would this powerful man/element have had the use and ties to Texas, The Mafia, Cubans, the Military? Intell? The research, intelligence, and passion I see on this forum amazes me. I am a lout compared. My view of this crime continues to evolve and change. Like Cliff and Tony Soprano, I've lost a lot of pets over the years. John McCloy and Allen Dulles, I think, were central to the plot. But there was a higher power at work. Who did these two work for?

I grabbed the following from Debra Conway over at Lancer -- hope I'm not breaking any rules, but I think it is interesting. To me this makes a lot of sense. The most sense, actually. Now, who is "Group One"?

Myra, with all sincerity, I say you are like the soft summer breeze. Always refreshing. It would be my guess that those who have you in their daily lives consider themselves to be most fortunate.

These funds are explained in some detail in Sterling Seagrave's great book, Gold Warriors. Hello John, Could you tell us where Seagrave puts the source of those funds?

Happy birthday there, Terry. Hope it's a good one.

Steve I posted a similar question a day or two ago, only I asked if this was Badge Man. He is hatless and appears from that distance to resemble the image from the Moorman photograph. Also, he appears to have an accomplice possibly placing something in the trunk or back of the car? - the figure in the railroad hat to the side of Badge Man in the polaroid? Didn't White have the same stocky build?

Is that a possibility?

Robert, So, if I am clear, in your view, Allen Dulles could've/was most likely to have ordered this murder? Allen Dulles. In your own mind, after all these years, have you reached this conclusion? This is of great interest to me. Thanks again for responding. Stan

Robert, Wait. Do you think those two (Hunt and Dulles) could've done all this on their own? If not, who was above? After all these years, in my elemental view, it comes to one of two choices. A debate is raging on this forum now of those two. I greatly respect your opinion. I'm sure others here do as well. You've earned that. I'm sure you've spent a good portion of your life (and vast intellect) on this case. Who, in your view, ordered the execution of John Kennedy?

gone.

Myra, thanks for posting that. The Kennedy assassination is a tangled mess of yarn. When you get to the very end, in my view, it leads to what you posted above and who, really, was behind the murder of John Kennedy.

Cliff, throw Allen Dulles in there. For whom did he work, really? And, all the names you mentioned were loyal to Dulles. I believe all it took was one conversation between one (very rich and powerful) man and Dulles and the whole thing swung into being. Again, for whom did Allen Dulles work? Terry said it very well above. Who does the CIA really represent? Who does the U.S. military really represent? For the extremely wealthy there are no consequences - except, that is, between them and God. I don't believe now that it really had anything to do with Cuba. It was a battle for control of the government - Cuba was a backdrop just like a lot of the other stuff. JFK was too smart for them, and they (the eastern established ruling class) would not allow everything they had to be taken away. Not one inch. Jack, Bobby, and then Ted? No way. Also, I think part of this was personal. JFK was slaughtered in public. There were so many other ways they could've taken him out. He dared to take on the powers that be in a very reckless way -- very much like he lived the rest of his life. The Rockefellers The Morgans The Lodges Dean Acheson Walt Rostow The Bundys Bankers and the War Party. That's where I am today. FWIW.

I think it could have been as simple as a single conversation between two (or possibly a few more) wealthy and powerful people. The rest gets entangled because of that vast wealth and power and obscures the view. Ask yourself a very simple question. Who was the most powerful man in the country in 1963? Would he have had reason to want John Kennedy dead? The power that killed JFK was absolute. It didn’t hope to get away with this crime. It didn’t think it could. It knew. Who does/did the CIA, the U.S. military, Allen Dulles, John McCloy, Maxwell Taylor really work for? If this power had hold of the presidency, and had for a long time, would it let go? Terry Mauro, what do you think?

gone

Who was in control of the Marilyn Monroe murder? Who was in control of the murder of Cord Meyer's wife? Murder was very in for the American Establishment in the sixties. Who did the Establishment trust to take care of the dirty work?

Does anyone think Angleton was the the mastermind behind the JFK assassination? given the order from a single source, and he took care of the rest?

.....

Shanet, Your theory certainly connects all the dots. Once you know there was a conspiracy, the question is then "why"? I believe the order came straight from the pinnacle of power. My question for a long while now has been, "Was that power inside or outside of the government?" Are the lines blurred there? From Matthew Smith's "JFK, The Second Plot", page 314: The conspirators had names, and it is likely that more than one of them -- perhaps all of them -- at one time or another shaken the President by hand. It is not difficult to believe that the whole thing started by two people expressing their discontent to one another, perhaps one angry enough to suggest that someone ought to rid the country of Kennedy once and for all. If the other heard his own thoughts and feelings on the matter being expressed, the conversation would not have to develop very far before it featured considerations of how such a goal might be achieved. The two would be extremely wealthy men, two of those who were used to their money, power and influence obtaining for them anything they wanted. Two who belonged to that 'other government' of big business who, at the end of the day, believed that what was best for the interest of their group was best for the United States. They would recount how they had discussed this subject with their friends and acquaintances, and how many othe people felt the same way. The people they were talking about were people in high places, people in the Pentagon who were seething over Kennedy's polices, people in oil and other businesses who made no secret about their hatred of the young President. They knew the Mafia could not wait to see him go, one way or another, any way as long as he went, and there were others too. The outcome of this discussion would be that they would talk in the utmost secrecy to some of the friends they had mentioned, and arrage a meeting of 'interested parties'... The next meeting probably became some kind of council of war with those present pledging themselves to the 'project' -- how to get rid of President Kennedy. Thre were probably not more than half a dozen people in the room, and the atmosphere would not be at all reminiscent of whispering plotters planning something dastardly. It would be more likely a staid 'other government' gathering where those present saw what they had to do as something exceedingly distasteful but, none the less, imperative for the nation. The aura would be one of dedicated patriotism, no doubt. Among those present there would probably be a general and probably a high ranking CIA official, who would talk of others of their colleagues, upon whom they could completely rely for their participation. Most of those there would represent, one way or another, money, and money would be available in virtually limitless supply for the vital 'project' they were undertaking. If there was not a Mafia representative present, it is likely a decision was made to seek a nominee from their ranks. Their first task would be to secure the service of a 'supremo', an 'arranger' who would organise the whole event to the instructions given him by the group representative, the only person who would be known to him. Arrangements having been made for a bank account, from which funds could be drawn, the arranger may not have met the group representative again. Possibly he was given deatils of the ambush, the plan for which may have been drawn up by the conspiring general, and perhaps he was also given the name of a Mafia contact knowledgeable about available assassins on the international 'circuit'. His job would be to set up the main tier plot, though, no doubt, he would also become responsible for the unexpected cover up which became necessary, also. It was probably thought best that the arranger be kept in ignorance of the details of the second plot, that being the responsibility of the CIA member of the group, though he would be told how it would dovetail into the main tier plot... ...it is likely it was some sort of consortium representing different interests, and it amost certainly was planned, as the conspiratiors saw it, 'in the national interest'. It was a coup d'etat they were planning. No doubt many of those who participated in the two plots -- those who knew what it was they were about -- felt the same way as the conspiratorial group about the President. But those people who sat down together to plot the President's demise and the overthrow of the administration were people of power and influence and money -- the Establishment -- and whichever way they planned it, they achieved anonymity, thanks to that part of the second plot which succeeded.

Shanet, when you say "medical surveillance", you are speaking of Kennedy's drug use, correct? To me, now, there is no doubt there was conspiracy in JFK's killing. The question then becomes why? Why did the established order view him as such a threat? The MIC certainly had reason to see Kennedy as a stone in the shoe, to put it mildly. Perhaps the pain killers (and such) along with sleeping with supposed spies gave them all the reason they felt they needed to do their 'patriotic duty'. It's good to see you posting again, Shanet.

gone

James, there is a police officer in the upper left corner of the photo you posted. Could that possibly be Badge Man?

Duke, look like this?

Duke, look like this?