Mark Stapleton

Tim, Just because the conspirators can't be identified with certainty doesn't detract from the historical analysis that a conspiracy ended the life of JFK. Are you now declaring there was no conspiracy?

I agree. I intend to argue that it was the same group of people who organized most of the assassinations that was ordered by this group. I will develop this argument on the Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-1990 thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799 John, Without wanting to pre-empt your post, would they be from the same group who attempted the assassination of De Gaulle in '62? Tim, While I acknowledge your determination to solve the case, you can't shoot down plausible scenarios with mere technicalities, especially this long after the event. Appreciate the info on Connally, though. I never knew he ran as a Republican. Nothing surprises me.

Either Gerald Ford (who is close to death I believe) or George Walker Herbert Bush?

Listen guys. You're taking this way beyond the scope of the Forum. Forget about it.

Interesting post, John. Nixon attempting to make Connally his VP? That's a bizarre scenario considering they were politically opposed but nothing would surprise me. Attempting to determine the identity of the conspirators by tracing the trail of suspicious deaths is probably the best short cut to solving the case. It's got to be better than wading through the disinformation swamp. Assuming that Brown & Root and other memebers of the military industrial complex were behind the assassination, who do you speculate were the mechanics chosen to carry it out? Mobster connected hitmen and anti-Castro Cubans don't fit with me. Too unreliable. Great post.

Logically, the American and European Governments so alarmed by this development don't have a leg to stand on. Ahmadinejad also says he will ban inpectors if Iran is referred to the security council. He doesn't fear sanctions. It looks like America will just have to wear it. There is also the possibility of a US backed Israeli strike on the Isfahan facility, similar to the attack on the Iraqi facility in 1981. The consequences of such an action could be disastrous.

Yes, the nations of South America are moving to the left with great rapidity. Democracy in its purest form, ie.without scores of parasitic lobbyists, will ultimately reflect the wishes of the people. Chavez in Venezuela has been a shining example to the rest of the continent. I agree the Bush Government's reprehensible behavior has also been a factor. Americans will probably be puzzled. Given that 60% of them get their information from Fox news, the majority have no idea what is going on in the world and the acrimony towards America which has been caused by successive American Governments, especially this one. These new Governments in South America will attempt to improve the lot of their citizens, beginning with basic services. The Bush Government has never governed in the interests of its people. Instead, it has fed them lies and distortions in order to keep them distracted while they have lined the pockets of their mega-rich supporters (and themselves). The hordes of stinking lobbyists, which have attached themselves to the American body politic like a malignant cancer, ensure that Government policy exclusively favors the wealthy elites and punishes the less well off for being poor. It's an amusing irony that these South American countries are going to teach the USA a lesson in how to run a democracy.

I'm taking a keen interest in the current hysteria concerning Iran's nuclear intentions. I suspect the hypocrisy of the whole affair is being driven by a fear that America and Europe won't be able to throw their weight around in the Middle East if Iran goes ahead and produces a nuclear weapon or two. I believe nuclear weapons to be the ultimate deterrent and don't see why certain countries should be prevented from making their own national security arrangements.

Pat, There's something fishy about the Tippit slaying, to be sure. I can't resign myself to accepting LHO as the killer, though. I can't see why he would commit such a serious crime as killing a cop when he obviously didn't kill the President. This would require accepting that Oswald obligingly turned into a murderer just as he was being fitted up for another murder (of which he was innocent). What a stroke of luck for the conspirators--and how considerate of Oswald.

Tim, Interesting stuff (and from Gerry about Molina). I still don't think your theory is plausible, though. You've asserted that Trafficante had suspicious links but he's a gangster--all his links are suspicious. And the claim that Ruby worked for Trafficante is one I dispute. There's evidence his real boss was Meyer Lansky, ie, Ruby was Jewish, like Lansky. The way I see it the Mafia, whether Sicilian or Jewish, wanted to see the end of Castro--they wouldn't be assassinating Presidents for him. If they did, then why have the media continued to cover it up all these long years later when all the reasons LBJ cited for the coverup are long redundant? The media covering up for the mafia and Castro--42 years later? Finally we agree on something--the ethics of the mainstream media. You're becoming a bit of a left winger, Tim.

My mistake. On the issue of "flatfoot", he's clearly the tramp walker (same clothes, same build and same hair). Whether or not he's Taylor is more of a problem but his claim that he was in Washington must be viewed with an element of doubt.

Ron and Adam, He's the guy with the resemblance to Maxwell Taylor. The back of the head is a close match, IMO. This means he was photographed at DP and also the Tippit murder scene. He's got a keen interest in the case for an innocent bystander.

We would if the Australian Cricket Board would allocate us some tickets http://cricket-online.org/news.php?sid=4813 Yes, I've heard they're extremely hard to get. I believe there's an army of about 50,00 Poms coming down to watch the carnage (and flaunt their economic imperialism).

Maybe. However, I think we will do slightly better than you in the World Cup in Germany. You're on safe ground there John but remember we have Supercoach Hiddink. And two years ago we made mincemeat out of Fiji.

Oh McGoo you've done it again ! In one of the Johnson bios (sorry I can't remember which one - It may be Sam Johnson's Boy) It is reported that Lady Bird instigated a detailed research project into LBJ's ancestry. Apparently the project was abandoned when it became clear that there was more bad blood than blue blood in his lineage. LBJ was determined that the Royal House of Hillbilly be given their turn.

Although this thread is straying dangerously close to becoming a love-in, I echo Tim's gracious comments. Sincere thanks to John and Andy. All bets are off next summer, though--the Ashes are coming home. You guys should head down under to watch the slaughter. Warning: it won't be one for the faint hearted!!

Steve, You're not alone. I'm struggling to understand what Tom's talking about, too.

Jim, Thanks for that. I agree that John McCloy is a person of significant interest. BTW, were you aware of McCloy's role as Presidential emissary to Egypt and Israel? The reason I ask is that JFK's efforts to curb nuclear proliferation in the Middle East seem to have been erased from the public domain. I have Dallek's bio of JFK (JFK: An Unfinished Life), which runs to over 700 pages and the book doesn't contain a single word about JFK's efforts in this important area. You're probably right about JFK's consistency concerning the Soviets. However, his policy concerning nuclear proliferation in the Middle East appears to be perfectly consistent and solid. From his first meeting with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion at the Waldorf-Astoria in 1961, during which he extracted tentative guarantees concerning inspections of the Dimona facility, right through to the time of his assassination, JFK was strongly opposed to any nuclear proliferation in the region. The small research reactor constructed with US assisstance at Nachal Soreq was not the major concern, the Dimona facility--with the plutonium separation plant constructed by Israel with French assistance--was the issue. The situation changed rapidly after JFK's demise, despite LBJ's window dressing.

Jim, John McCloy's activities on behalf of the Government did not cease in 1961. On 15 June 1963, the same day Kennedy wrote a strongly worded letter to Israeli PM David Ben Gurion (which Ben Gurion never opened), he also sent a letter to Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser. In both letters, JFK warned of the dangers of the continuing arms race in the Middle East and expressed his interest in the parties reaching some form of agreement to curb this development. He ended his letter by saying that in accordance with his earlier readiness to discuss the matter through a Presidential envoy, he named John McCloy to speak on his behalf because of his "unmatched experience in the arms control sphere". This comes from Avner Cohen's 1998 book, "Israel and the Bomb" which I intend to make the subject of a new thread shortly. Cohen is a senior research fellow at the National Security Archive at George Washington University. He has taught and researched in universities in Israel and the United States (from the book's back cover). The book was the result of a ten year research project and has over 1200 footnotes. Anyway, McCloy met Nasser in Cairo on 27 June 1963. This was the first stop on a two part mission which was intended to include a trip to Israel (the latter was called off after Nasser's negative response to McCloy's proposals). Robert Komer, National Security Council advisor on Middle East affairs, and JFK both expressed disappointment at McCloy's performance. From Chapter 12, "the Arabs and Dimona" (pp249-250): "On 5 July,1963 Kennedy sent his toughest letter on the matter of Dimona to Israel's new PM, Levi Eshkol. McCloy was not informed of the letter. Two days later the State Department cabled Ambassador Badeau, asking him to see Nasser for clarification of the points on which McCloy had failed to elaborate, that is, the American concern over Dimona. Badeau was asked to tell Nasser that the "Dimona reactor is now in an advanced stage of construction and, while intended for peaceful purposes, it does have the potential capability of producing fuel for nuclear weapons". He was told to stress to Nasser that it was the American estimate "that Israelis are not and have not decided to start developing such weapons. However, Israelis are approaching the stage where their combination of technical skills and physical plant, though developed for peaceful uses, also could give them the capability for producing a nuclear weapon within a few years if the arms race should expand into highly sophisticated fields". The cable again linked the UAR missile project and Israel's nuclear development: the Egyptian work on advanced missile development allowed the Israelis to justify "their moving into the nuclear weapons field if they should decide to do so". This was the reason for the U.S. initiative. The cable also criticized the Egyptians for their opposition to inspection and international safeguards for reasons of national sovereignty, even though Egypt had no significant nuclear facilities. This objection-in-principle to inspection only served the Israelis, who already had nuclear facilities at the time, by allowing them to reject international inspections of facilities on similar grounds and argue that Egypt was secretly developing nuclear weapons. It would be in Egypt's interests to accept the external safeguards and allow the United States to press Israel on this matter. This attempt by JFK to correct McCloy's failure to accurately spell out to Nasser what his position on the arms race was is the most likely point where JFK and McCloy fell out, IMO.

Fascinating stuff. I've never dreamt of the assassination but always thought that the entire tableau--from the turn into Elm until the final headshot--had an unreal, illusory, dreamlike feel to it. The limo then suddenly speeding towards the underpass represented a rude awakening to the nightmare of lies which followed. I'll eat lots of camembert (I like it runny) and throw in a few radishes and see how I go.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, democracy can't function effectively when special interests are allowed to bribe politicians and corrupt the system. As Gary's excellent post implies, the Government becomes a vehicle for the implementation of policies which benefit those with the most money, to the detriment of the vast majority. The pharmaceutical lobby, with two lobbyists for every congressman, is a great example. The lobby ensures that cheap, generic alternatives to the most popular therapeutic drugs don't become available to the general public and massive profits to the industry and its' shareholders are the result. Cheaper alternatives, manufactured in Mexico, are even advertised on this Forum. Add to this the fact that the US is the only western country without some form of universal health care and you have a health system for the rich only. I don't know why there aren't riots in the streets. The corruption of the democratic system exists in other countries as well, but its most rampant manifestation is in the US. Banning political donations seems like the only solution which might prevent the system from collapsing but, of course, this is replete with practical difficulties. It's a well that's so deep. As China and India gradually squeeze America and other western countries into lowering the living standards of their citizens in order to compete, those citizens might just realise that the last two decades have seen massive wealth tranfers to a tiny proportion of the population and the political systems which they so cherish have done nothing to prevent it. By the people, for the people etc. is just a bunch of crap.

Tim, If the person you are referring to here is Davidson (not "David"), then it doesn't seem to make sense that he would represent Castro, given his apparent aforementioned client base.

Bill, Thanks for addressing those questions. My only disagreement is in the argument that the conspiracy must have left a paper trail leading to the assassination. While the Cuban ops left a trail, the assassination was an "off the books" assignment, IMO. There's no paper relating to it or incriminating trail leading to it. Just my opinion, of course. Diving too deep into the covert Cuba ops kind of makes my eyes glaze over but I don't want to slow down your thread. There's many experts on the matter here who can debate these issues with great authority. For me, the Cuban imbroglio has been used for too long to feed the chooks. I'm looking elsewhere at the moment.

Tim, For heaven's sake Tim, spare us that Benjamin Franklin stuff. Robert didn't call him a creep because he disagrees with him--it was you who added that. Rather, I think he was alluding to Russo's rude dismissal of anyone daring to challenge his firm belief in Oswald's guilt. FWIW, I too think Russo is full of AMCRAP.

Chris, Thanks for the info and links. I guess there's still a glimmer of hope.