Mark Stapleton

Because I think it would be very interesting if this could be pursued.............has anyone ever heard of this "minesport"?

Tim, You're asking history to "assume" LBJ was not a conspirator in order to accommodate this theory? My response is that LBJ wanted history to believe he was willing to forgo bringing his beloved leader's murderers to justice in order to save 40 million lives. What gallantry. Your argument can also be employed to support the adverse view--that the spectre of 40 million potential casualties was enough to frighten off any serious investigation of the crime. "Assuming" the conspirators were not Soviet bloc countries, then wouldn't this be a most cunningly concieved stratagem? Finally and most obviously, why would the Soviet bloc conspire to kill a President who obviously wanted peace and take their chances with the man once described as "Senator for the Pentagon"?. No assumptions required there.

The article is a fine critique of Stone's critics. The journalistic paradigm that truth can't exist without revealed evidence is relevant to assassination research. This sham has been used by apologists of the Government coverup to deride researchers for years. Interesting that Sam also mentions the war on drugs as one of the examples of America's democratic disintegration. The war on drugs is an obscene exercise in global mendacity, IMO.

Does anyone know anything about this "minesport"? Anyone?

Tom, If you only quote from official reports then you won't be able to determine who killed JFK.

Great photo, James. Yale and the skull and bones society. That's interesting.

My humble contribution to this thread is as follows: I believe the person most responsible for the assassination was LBJ. While not involved in the hands on planning of Dealey Plaza, there's enough evidence in my mind to label the whole sordid affair an LBJ production. In June 1963, LBJ and Governor Connally met with JFK in El Paso, Texas. From this meeting, a plan for JFK to visit Texas crystallised. (Interestingly, this was mere days after JFK signed Executive Order 11110, the Federal Reserve Bill. I agree with Terry Mauro that this may have been significant, even conclusive, in sealing JFK's fate). So LBJ got him to visit and continued to stress to JFK the importance of his visit (supposedly to heal the rift between Connally and Yarborough). This done, others stepped in to assist with the plan. LBJ did a few more things to ensure the plan's success, among them arranging a slight change to the motorcade order which included placing the flat bed press truck well behind the presidential limo. Fortunately he knew that JFK usually left details like this to others. However, he had less success convincing JFK to allow Connally and Yarborough to change places on game day. This may account for LBJ's sullen demeanour during the motorcade. His plan might result in getting his friend killed as well. After the assassination we have the rapid swearing in (arranged by LBJ himself, of course), the ill-feeling between the respective entourages (noted by, and partially excused by Manchester) and the rapid removal of the evidence in the limo (including the windshield). His most elaborate piece of post-production, the Warren Commission, came later. Why do I think it was LBJ and who helped him carry it out? By 1963, LBJ had established a vast and intricate network of alliances which included Texas oil, arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, the Israeli Government and many of the major media players in the US. LBJ's primary financial backer throughout his career was the engineering firm Brown and Root (now Halliburton). One of his earliest successes for his benefactors was securing a $10M dam project, the Marshall Ford Dam, from Roosevelt's new deal fund for public works in the 1930's. Along with his early mentor, Senator Alvin Jacob Wirtz, LBJ acquired large defence contracts from Roosevelt in the late 1930's for Brown and Root, enabling them to prosper as the major contractor for building military bases. I don't want to make this too long so I'll conclude by restating my view that LBJ had, by 1963, acquired such an extensive collection of rich and powerful allies (by virtue of the many favors he had done for them) that this enabled him to call in a favor at a time when his future was looking bleak--to put it mildly. I'll add that I agree with Lee Forman in that the CIA is basically an organisation which by 1963 had strayed far from its original charter and was being used by powerful domestic interests in furtherance of their aims (profit). LBJ had the persuasive skills, fuelled by desperation, to convince those in the power loop that assassination was the only solution--and one that would result in winners all round. Finally, my best guess as to who carried out the hits on JFK and Officer Tippett? A joint US/Israeli military intelligence operation.

Despite the fact that John's already warned you about sidetracking this thread, I'll respond to you once and once only. I don't really understand why you take issue with the aforementioned terminology, unless you are deliberately nit-picking. In a conspiracy of this magnitude, I assume it would be a prudent move for the conspirators to inform certain like minded parties (who held positions of authority) of the impending action. Do you really think that people like Hoover or Curtis LeMay were stunned, shocked and surprised by the assassination? Hoover's phone call to RFK didn't exhibit much shock and surprise. Hoover was overlord of domestic intelligence. He had his turf--and his ego. He had ruled the FBI for forty years and prided himself on knowing every move people made. For him to be deliberately kept in the dark about something like this would, to an outside observer like myself, seem to be an insult of the most egregious kind. Similarly, had the Joint Chiefs not been told in advance that the President was to be executed it would be seen by them as such a breach of their authority and standing as to almost amount to an act of war. Do you think that Hoover and the JCS believed Oswald did it? Your silly analogy about criminals giving police chiefs advance knowledge of crimes has no relevence. The parties who had foreknowledge were not police chiefs. They were like minded individuals who were happy to see JFK depart. This thread is for regular posters to put forward their theory. My post was merely a statement of my agreement with J Raymond Carroll on one of his points. I haven't posted my theory yet. Wait until I post it before you start with the ridicule and silly analogies.

I agree with Jefferson Morley on this one point, so instead of revealing (theorizing about) who was involved in the murders of JFK , J.D. Tippit and Lee Oswald, I have made my top ten list of popular suspects who should be eliminated on the basis that, even after 40 years of intense scrutiny, the evidence and arguments against them do not amount to Probable Cause, IMO. I include Probable Cause that any of these parties engaged in a deliberate attempt to conceal or cover up the truth after the fact. 1/ J. Edgar Hoover, James Hosty, the FBI as an organization 2/ Lee Oswald, Marina Oswald. 3/ David Phillips, John McCone, the CIA as an organization. 3/ Mafioso such as Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Roselli or Sam Giancana 4/ Winston Lawson and Clint Hill or the Secret Service as an organization 5 General Maxwell Taylor or the Military Industrial Complex as an institution 6/ The John Birch Society, General Edwin Walker 7/ H.L. Hunt or his sons Bunker & Lamar, Clint Murchison & his family 8/ Dallas police chief Jesse Curry or the Dallas police as an institution. 9/ Most of the members and staff of the Warren Commission and the HSCA. 10/ Fidel Castro, the KGB. I realize that many forum members may disagree with some/many/most/all of this list, and I hope you will forgive me if other committments prevent me from defending/documenting (at this stage) the views expressed herein. Ray <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I intend to post my theory shortly but I must say that's a comprehensive list of suspects you've eliminated, Raymond. While I disagree with some, I do agree that Hoover was not a conspirator. Initially I thought he was involved, given his well known antipathy towards the Kennedys, but now I believe he fails the test as an active plotter. His career reveals few examples of stunning creativity and original ideas, just a litany of subtle threats of blackmail and general paranoia. However, I believe he had foreknowledge of the hit. This is because as head of America's domestic intelligence agency, the conspirators were obliged to inform him in advance--as a courtesy. Their gripe was with JFK alone. They had no desire to make additional enemies, especially one's who could be so useful in the subsequent coverup. Naturally they wouldn't have given Hoover the heads up without first being aware of his great antagonism towards Jack and Bobbie. Hoover's intense dislike of the Kennedy's was probably Washington's worst kept secret but just in case the conspirators were unaware, the world's most opportunistic name-dropper would have eagerly stepped in to give them the goss. No prizes for guessing who that would be.

A very eloquent and passionate speech indeed. Looks like RFK Jnr has the smarts of his old man. His argument about corporate interference--indeed capture--of the US Government--to the undeniable detriment of the wider citizenry--has great resonance. I've argued this point on other threads before but RFK Jnr's speech puts it neatly in a nutshell--allowing corporations to run the democratically elected Government can only end in disaster because the aspirations of the corporations differ greatly from the aspirations of the people. That's not to say corporations are bad, they're simply amoral and they shouldn't be running public policy. His examples corporate sponsored environmental degradation in the US should be extremely worring for all Americans.

Pat, Very interesting tidbit. Arthur Schlesinger gave a lengthy interview on our national radio a few years back (not that long before he died) but unfortunately the assassination barely got a mention. I hope you're right about Bobby's kids embracing the good fight.

Site A is a link to “Ecker’s JFK Webpage.” Site B is a link to John McAdams’s site. Is this fair to the students or what? My site says right up front that there was a conspiracy, whereas you can read McAdams’s entire index page and get the impression that his site takes no side on the issue. So unless those freshmen spend a lot of valuable time actually browsing McAdams’s site, which site are they naturally going to find more “objective”? http://library.mcneese.edu/tutorial/freshorientation.htm Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, They're trying to portray your site as a conspiracy site, hence not objective. Of course, as everyone who has studied the assassination knows, it was indeed a conspiracy. Objective analysis of the available evidence shows this to be the case. I'm confident the more astute freshmen will see through this exercise in semantics. If they like your site as much as I do maybe we'll recruit some new assassination researchers.

Craig, A very interesting piece you quoted. Good post. Tim, That was the lamest link to the assassination I've ever heard. Trust me Tim, humor isn't your long suit . Tom, Thanks for your informative posts. However, I respectfully submit that a distinct vein of "Yankee v. South" runs through many of your posts. I thought the civil war was over. It appears that the focus of retribution may have been trained too harshly on President Bush. I plead guilty. While President Bush displayed a perplexed helplessness on television, an image at odds with a decisive leader, much of the blame for administrative failure lies with City officials and the Governor. (However, I still believe the President has been a reckless failure on foreign policy.) It's hard to believe that a nation as technologically advanced as the U.S. can find itself stumbling over bureaucratic red tape caused by competing Federal and State jurisdictions at a time of national emergency. Is this a fair comment? If so, it prevents the executive from exercising national leadership in times of emergency. As a foreigner, it seems that the United States of America is a misnomer. Shouldn't it be called the "Loosely Allied States of America" or maybe just the "States of America"?

This is indeed a problem of ideology. People in Europe believe in a welfare state where no one falls below a certain level. This is a expensive policy and needs high levels of progressive taxation. It is the sort of taxation that you have said several times on the forum that you are very much against. It is this level of taxation and the resulting government protection it provides that makes countries civilized. It is no coincidence that America responds to natural disasters like a third world country. That is why it relies on calls for charity donations in times of crisis. That is what third world countries have to do at times like that. What we know is that charity is not the way to solve these problems. Research shows that rich people and rich countries are always the meanest when it comes to giving charity. I suspect America will get a poor response from its calls for help. People will understandably say, why has the American government been spending billions of dollars in invading other countries when it cannot afford to protect its own citizens. It is also noted that it was not long ago that only recently the American people elected this moron to remain in office for another four years. I suppose therefore that Bush’s values reflects those of the American people. That means you have a government that refused to help the poor people get out of New Orleans. As they have been telling us on the television and in the newspapers, they did not have the money to get out of New Orleans. As they also pointed out, where would they go when they got out of the city. They don’t have money to stay in motels. They also claimed they would not have been made to feel welcome outside of New Orleans. What does that tell us about American society? In an European country the government would have paid to evacuate the people of New Orleans. They would have also paid for their accommodation while away from home. That is why we have a welfare state? It is not for the rich. It is for the poor who do not have the money to protect themselves from situations like this. As you know, I constantly find your moral judgements totally repulsive. Another example of your moral code can be found on the thread on Abortion and Nazi Germany. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3566 I find the moral code of your leader equally repulsive. This is reflected in his decision to redirect funding away from building up the defences of New Orleans. Bush is also an incompetent politician. First he continues his holiday at the beginning of the crisis. Then he appears and with that repulsive smirk of his, makes completely inappropriate comments. Then it takes him five days to get people stranded in places like the New Orleans Convention Centre. Yet, as Tony Allen-Mills, wrote in today’s Sunday Times, he had no difficulty driving to the centre after the disaster had taken place. If he could do it, why couldn’t they have got buses and helicopters into the area? Soon after the 1927 flood in New Orleans the people voted into power Huey Long whose campaign slogan was “Share the Wealth”. I expect something similar will happen this time. If I was one of the right-wing millionaires concerned with keeping my wealth, I would at this moment be secretly plotting the removal of George Bush from office. He is so incompetent he poses a real threat to the power elite in America. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very good post, John. The slackness of the US Government's response to this crisis does a great disservice to the American people. The reason for the slackness, of course, is because most of those stranded in New Orleans have no money. The damage to President Bush's credibility is terminal, IMO. The entire episode has become an international embarrassment. Ironically, nature itself has revealed George Bush and his support base for what they are.

Hmmm. Why did you say that? Did someone tell you to say that? Who told you to say that - the Government? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very witty, Evan. There aren't enough Seinfeld related gags on the Forum. It's a sad state of affairs .

I don't want to sound like a doomsday prophet but there's another one forming southeast of Florida--named Lee. It's incredible but New Orleans is gone. And this might not be the end of it. From my recent understanding, the water temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is the problem. An ocean temperature of 27.5C is required before sufficient evaporation provides conditions suitable for the creation of a hurricane. A large section of the Gulf is now 30C.

Pat, I agree with your summation of LBJ's MO. That's what I meant in my post, namely it's possible RFK okayed Dulles and McCloy but (in answer to John's original question) it's unlikely that RFK specifically asked for their inclusion. Just one of many examples of LBJ being fast and loose with the truth.

Only when it suited his purpose.

I agree with what Larry is implying. From what I've read about LBJ, most of his recorded historical legacy was designed to protect his rear end. In another example of duplicity, LBJ told others at Love Field that RFK wanted him sworn in--pronto. This was not entirely true as LBJ, in his telephone conversation with RFK shortly after the assassination, used clever name-dropping to get RFK to agree to a swift swearing-in. I don't believe Bobby would have asked for McCloy and Dulles to be put on the WC. It's very convenient that LBJ's autobio was written after RFK's death. It makes a subsequent denial by RFK highly unlikely.

Richard, Thanks for your informative post. I hope Chavez stays in power as long as Castro has.

Wrong again. It just means Chavez has a genuine concern for the poor and the dispossessed. Global capitalists should hang their heads in shame.

There is indeed a first time for everything. I leave the country for a month and when I return England can play cricket and the Aussies are in turmoil What was that little strop from Ponting about when he was run out? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think Ponting was just angry at being run out by a bad call from Damien Martyn. Expect Australia to regain its' mercenary mindset when McGrath returns for the fifth Test. Simon Jones' injury is a concern for England.

I agree. It was an accident, although it's possible Holt was reconsidering the wisdom of committing to Vietnam. James, your father was very perceptive. My father thought LBJ was great. Great photo, btw. Is that a beer or a bourbon and coke HH is holding?

Fascinating stuff, John. I hope there's more to come. I would like to know who those executives mentioned by Garrison were. The theory that it was the work of the Aerospace wing of the MIC may be closer to the mark than we think. In Robert Dallek's "JFK-an unfinished life", the author points out that JFK appointed LBJ to be Chairman of the National Space Council (being a canny politician, he probably did this so LBJ would take the fall if there was a major mishap in any of the flights). LBJ worked closely with James Webb, the boss of NASA. Complaints from lobbyists and congressmen from Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania that LBJ was awarding all the contracts to his friends in Texas and California soon followed. JFK responded by appointing Richard Callaghan as aide to Webb in order to ascertain LBJ's "influence on the Space Agency". What I'm suggesting is that if those defence contractors had a hand in planning the assassination, then LBJ would be the first to know. And I believe he knew.

William Manchester wrote of a furious argument between JFK and LBJ the night before the assassination. The subject matter of the argument is not revealed but it's also been mentioned by others, including John Simkin, that there was a further disagreement concerning the seating arrangements on the morning of the assassination. LBJ obviously wanted his friend Connally out of the line of fire. Naturally, LBJ wouldn't reveal anything about this dispute, but it's clear to me that he knew very well what was about to occur.