Mark Stapleton

Pat, Thanks for that. I vaguely recall Tim giving some weak explanation as to why the coverup occurred--if Castro was behind the assassination--but Tim's never really explained it all. I wish he would so it wouldn't appear that me and others are always pursuing him on this.

Tim, This is no answer, just a lot of bs. Truth is, you have no answer to this question put by Steve Mullard, do you? Namely, if Fidel did it, then how in the world did he orchestrate such an effective cover-up for 42 years--and from outside America? It's no use replying that someone else did the coverup--you've got to explain why this "other" group would carry out such an elaborate public hoax for Fidel's benefit. It's also useless stating that "Once you consider that the cover-up was not necessarily orchestrated by the assassins, the problem you suggest disappears". No it doesn't. How? You never bother explaining these glaring incongruities which erode the foundation of your case. You just fly off to post messages on a dozen different threads, hoping that scrutiny of the numerous flaws in your scenario can be put off with something like "I answered that on another thread". For a member who ridicules other's suggestions so vigorously, it's blatant hypocrisy.

Steve, Tim can't answer that one (I've asked him before). You're right, of course. To think the Mafia or even worse, Castro, had the power to rig Government enquiries as well as do all those other things needed to maintain this secret is dopey. It doesn't stop Tim, though.

These were my kind of people, until Kennedy was actually killed. The planned 'NEW AMERICANIST' scheme LDS/JBS with it's framework so cunningly in place for more than a half century, moved quickly {upon Kennedy's death} to consolidate and hold perpetual power over a bewildered government and a confused nation. Who then can ever be tried or convicted for these awful crimes, when the guilty control, all legal and moral judgements, and dictate their own version of history? {from my 1990 manuscript/book, YROJ Connection} Harry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More from my 1990 manuscript/book YROJ Connection to the JFK assassination. Quotes from the 'action arm' of the LDS/JBS assassination conspiracy. " Finally, and probably most important of all courses of action, we would put our weight into the political scales in this country just as fast and far as we could" "...unless we can have enough of an awakening in this country, and enough of a rebellion against the appeasement policies our government outside, and it's communizing policies inside America, the Communists are going to succeed" " In the course of the awakening of America, there was a rapidly rising identification of the policies of the Kennedy administration with the plans of the Communists." " For unless we can eventually,and in time,reverse by political action ,the gradual surrender of the United States to Communism, the ultimate alternative of reversal by military uprising is fearful to contemplate. ...we are opposing a conspiracy...our determination to overthrow an entrenched tyranny is the very stuff of which revolutions are made." "...the result of our failure in this fight most positively will be concentration camps, or worse, and soon, we must all stick together or we will surely hang separately." ------------------- -------------------- ----------------- No honest conservative really believed that we were trying to do more than call the liberal establishment communist sympathizers in order to replace liberalism with conservatism. But we were unknowingly being used to help install this present system that is surreptitiously wielding every power of the U.S. government to force the extention of a purely materialistic religious empire that is intent on redesigning the entire world in it's own 'communal' image! An effort that includes brute force and isolation of resistant individuals and entire nations. Harry Dean, 1990. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> MORE, from the 1990 manuscript/book, YROJ Connection to...... So powerful we had become after Kennedy's removal,...that JBS leader Welch wrote to members.." we can take tremendous encouragement from the one huge victory we have won over the communists." " We have become very much a part of the cast,therefore, in the final act of this gory performance". "And I mean that last statement very literally." Harry Dean, 1990 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kennedy stated, "the very system of government is in dire peril and may not survive my term in office." The President was describing the severe threat posed by extremely powerful cooperative civil and military sedition at work. Harry Dean, 1990 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harry, When did JFK say this?

Tim, Er, wouldn't it be polite to consult with the Cuban people before you "invade Cuba and solve the Castro problem"?

What a tantrum.

Mark, You're right. This thread is just a big dummy spit by Tim. O'Donnell's not involved. Otherwise it would be the most bizarre conspiracy in the history of civilisation. (where have I heard that before) I never knew O'Donnell ran out of film. He also made the final decision on the bubbletop. However, in this matter there's been times when a person who is credited with making a decision is not necessarily the person who made the decision, if you follow. An example, when LBJ badgered RFK into agreeing to an AF1 swearing in, LBJ then began announcing to others that "RFK wants me sworn in before we leave Dallas". On the bubbletop, I've held a slight suspicion that someone may have helped him make that decision. Who would be important enough and close enough to influence O'Donnell ? I realise this is a hypothetical scenario but I would speculate on LBJ-or a proxy. I know I tend to get on LBJ's case but there's just so much circumstantial evidence pointing his way. "Now son, you just leave it to me--it's my home state". Far more interesting is CDD. Sorry Tim, but he's starting to look a bit ragged around the edges. If research on CDD gets somewhere, some of the credit will belong to you, Tim. Won't that be ironic?

Tim, "Shame sir!". Give me a break. Are you related to Dillon or something?

James, How do you think he got his second factory? It wasn't just pale green ramblers with roof racks, those prices have wide appeal.

Are you asking me to believe this is the sum total of your case?

Tim, You seem to think I'm accusing Dillon of masterminding the assassination. You know I'm doing no such thing. The issue is why can't any questions be asked about Dillon's possible involvement or foreknowledge, given the currently established facts?

Tim, What the.......?

Ron, The penny dropped--finally. $72.50 is ridiculously cheap for a new transmission, even in '63. Gotta be a mistake. One cycle cop has veered way out, unable to believe the price.

Ron, Off the top of my head, 1. Open windows 2. No cycle cops alongside and 3. Apparent large gap between the limo and the car ahead. Any more?

Tim, No, as I said, Dallek was referring to McNamara not Dillon. The word had widespread usage before it was hijacked by the gay lobby (you weren't in on that hijacking too, were you?--joke) Point is, if those few words I quoted from Dallek are the basis for your assertion that Dillon's involvement is an impossibility, you're really stretching it--again.

Tim, You must be referring to this, "McNamara was one of only two members of the Cabinet-the other being Douglas Dillon-who enjoyed a consistent social relationship with the Kennedys. Charming, gay, gregarious, a sort of modern Renaissance man with a capacity to discuss the arts and literature, he became a favorite of Jacqueline Kennedy's...." (Dallek p.527) That's McNamara Dallek's talking about. This is the only reference in the book to Dillon's social relationship to Kennedy. So you absolve CDD from the possibility of any involvement based on this paragraph?

Tim, Oh, so now you don't have time to post the relevant parts form Sorenson's book which you undertook to do on the "Communication breakdown" thread ? It was post #188, I believe. I can only draw two conclusions: 1. You don't have the book or 2. It doesn't contain the material you said it did. I know I've said this before but I'll have to say it again--dear, oh dear.

Tim, What relevance your analogy has to the JFK assassination is a mystery best left for another day. Everyone knows people make mistakes Tim, but that's not the issue here is it? I'm more concerned with the parts of Sorenson's book which prove (to you) his innocence--you said so on post #50. Why are you avoiding this? Do you have the book?

Tim, As Robert pointed out, Brutus was Caesar's friend. Any student of history knows that, occasionally, friends do kill friends---where's your common sense? Anyway Tim, you did undertake to post your evidence of JFK's close friendship with CDD from the Sorenson book on the "Communication breakdown" thread. You've berated me and others for not reading it, so it must be vital. Where is it? Please post it at your earliest convenience. Thank you. p.s. Spare us the childish tantrums. It's a research forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Robert, Great post--interesting points. I was unaware that CDD had served as Acting Secretary of State. His deep involvement in the BOP plans and the Cuba program generally suggest a reason why the CIA pushed hard for his inclusion in JFK's cabinet. You also make a fair point in that, after the BOP, CDD's opinion of JFK may have changed for the worse. Robert, I agree that none of this indicts Dillon as a conspirator, although it does raise questions. It certainly reveals the foolishness of Tim's strident conviction that Dillon's involvement is impossible---because they socialised a lot!!!

Dawn, I have to differ with you on this. I'd much rather know who did kill JFK than who didn't.

Ron, Perhaps, but if there was complicity within the SS, I'd be surprised if Douglas Dillon didn't know of it. I realise that top executives delegate, but they also know that they ultimately bear responsibility for the performance of their department. Also, I don't think you necessarily needed to be in Dallas on November 22 to have been in the loop.

Tim, I'll let that go through to the 'keeper. More importantly, where's your answer to my question which you graciously agreed to supply. I know you must have the book nearby, it's like the Holy Grail of books for those foolish enough to disbelieve Dillon's innocence. Like an addict, I need that proof of innocence which lies within those pages, Tim. I'm waiting.

Tim, You're a bit quick to savor the moment, aren't you? While John believes Dillon was not involved, there was a little rider in his statement wasn't there? Namely, "you need to ask why forces within the CIA were so keen to have Dillon in JFK's Cabinet". Well............why? Or do you deny this to be the case? Why? BTW, I'm still waiting for your answer to my question about the Sorenson book on the "Communication breakdown" thread. You do remember that book, don't you?

Tim, Sorry to disappoint you but I did say "maybe". At the moment I'm going through some of the material Bernice linked to her post (#124). There's a mile of stuff there including some from Weberman. Some of it I've read before but I recommend forum readers give it more than a passing glance. The Rockerfeller Commission is interesting and probably doesn't receive sufficient coverage on the Forum, IMO. I don't know if Dillon had foreknowledge of JFK's assassination but as I've stated ad nauseum, he can't be ruled out as a suspect, IMO. Thus I disagree with your iron clad conviction of his innocence. Among the many problems I have with your perspective on the assassination is your tendency to claim certain sources as justification of your position. One example is the LBJ tapes, which you claim as proof of LBJ's non involvement. John Simkin and Ron Ecker say they prove no such thing. You don't have the credibility to carry your arguments. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ****************** Hi Mark: Well I found Sorenson, dusted it off, and reread the Dillon passages... IMO, there is nothing in such to claim any great love, nor friendship, it does not spell out either....however.. It does make mention that the McNamaras and Dillons were invited by the Kennedys to social gatherings more often than other members of the cabinet..and also that JFK did work closely with the Treasury, but also with the other members of the Cabinet as a one on one... Also as far as the the book, that I have read on the LBJ tapes, by Holland, ..I did come to the conclusion at that time, that it neither shows any guilt of the man nor his innocence .....though to me, many questions did arise within the said conversations....I also wonder if, and what was not released on the tapes...?? But in the LBJ tapes book, by Holland there are a few references to Dillon..one I did want to pass along as I found it interesting.... p: 216...."The only thing preventing more real and imagined slights between the two men ( RFK & LBJ) is the fact that over Thanksgiving Kennedy sequestered himself in Treasury Dillon's Hobe Sound, Florida ,compound, and has been literally in communicado since."..appears to be Wed. Dec.4th/63.. I also think that Tim is simply practicing the (his) floccinaucinihilipilification process. which can become rather tedious and boring very quickly,and a form of diversion from the information that anyone is trying to extend to the membership..IMO... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bernice, Thanks again. I would be surprised if Sorenson's book proved Dillon's innocence but Tim's the one making this wild claim, so let him prove it. This should all be very interesting. It's great that you have the book, because we can check his accuracy. From what I've been reading about CDD (and I'm only just beginning), there's no valid reason to cross him off, IMO. His connection to big banking and the fact that he's ex OSS and was boss of the SS are important matters for consideration. They might mean not much but to claim his involvement is not possible, well, that claim can't be sustained.