Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
Well, Mark, FYI, I scored the highest possible score on the LSAT and graduated at about ten percent level in my law school, where I was selected to teach legal writing for two years.
I also had an article published in the Wisconsin Law Review.
And I once argued successfully a case against Kirkland and Ellis in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although I was not accepted, I interviewed for a job at Nixon's firm in Manhattan (this was post-Watergate so as you can imagine its association with Nixon was no longer a "badge of honor").
Since you asked.
Tim,
Nice answer. Yes or no would have been OK. Your legal training may explain some of the tactics you employ. Anyhow, I've a very important question for you on the "Communication Breakdown" thread, concerning C. Douglas Dillon for which I respecfully request your urgent attention. Thank you.
-
Re Ron's post re Maxwell Taylor, this emotion certainly tells me he had no involvement in the asssassination. He, a hard-bitten career military officet was presumably close to tears at the thought of the brutal murder if his friend.
He too is another man, most likely innocent, who has been indicted by certain members of this Forum on the scantest (if any) evidence.
Just caught Pat's post. Amen, Pat!
Tim,
I agree with Greg. How can you assume his innocence just on this. Quite ridiculous. As Greg suggested, it could be anything from sadness, regret, guilt or even cover. This is why Forum members take issue with you so often. You jump to conclusions when it suits you. True intellectual dishonesty.
On a more important point, namely the very important and as yet unresolved matter of C. Douglas Dillon and his possible involvement, I have a request. Since you are convinced that Sorenson's bio of JFK proves beyond doubt Dillon's innocence of any involvement and since I don't happen to have this book at the moment, perhaps you would be kind enough to quote the passages from which you derive your stunning conclusions. I assume the references to Dillon are only minor in the overall scheme of the work--after all, it's a book about JFK not Dillon, so it shouldn't give you writer's cramp. Just the important, conclusive sentences will do, then I can evaluate them for myself. I've seen some of your posts have been up to 1000 words at times so the collation of the relevant data and its transcription to this site would be child's play for a person of your prodigious output. I believe you are a super member. I know you won't let me down, Tim.
I would dearly love to see that proof vis-a-vis Douglas Dillon. Don't let me down now. Otherwise people might think that you're phony.
-
John wrote:
Were you really trained as a lawyer?
John, I respectfully submit I could use all the mistakes at the BOP and the crazy schemes the CIA was considering to do in Castro (remember the exploding sea shell and "elimination by illumination") to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the incompetence of the CIA.
Reading about many of these schemes it is difficult to believe that the men considering them were well-educated.
And then look at Watergate. McCord was a CIA man. Unless his placement of the tape was deliberate, that was a rather stupid mistake as well.
As someone once commented about the CIA in this period, it resembled the Keystone Cops.
I know you do not like this because it supports Trento's theory, but, in my opinion, the facts do support his theory. Had there been CIA operatives in Dealey Plaza they probably would have shot themselves.
Tim,
That's very nice but would you mind answering John's question.
-
John,
Nice work, John. Similar forum to this one. Can never have too many, IMO.
-
Mark wrote:
Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.
Not just luck, Mark.
Permit me, then, a friendly grammatical point.
"You're" is a contraction short for "you are". Your sentence should read"
"Your lucky day, Tim."
If you refuse to learn about the assassination from me*, perhaps you will accept my grammatical points.
By the way, I think you will be glad that I pressed you to read Sorenson's book!
Tim,
* By that I mean (for instance) that I may not know for sure who did it but I do know for sure some who did not, among them C. Douglas Dillon.
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.
-
Taylor looks like he's imitating Lansdale with that stooped right shoulder. Or does conspiracy just do that to you?
Ron
Ron,
Just a mild case of "post assassination prognostication". Dinkin had it bad.
-
Mark wrote:
You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note.
Mark, let me quote from your previous post your exact words and the me,bers can decide for themselves. These are your exact words on Post # 162:
However, his [Ted Sorsenson's] apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon.
If that does not say that Ted Sorenson and Douglas Dillon were fellow Republicans, I do not know what does.
I am glad you are going to read his book, however. I think you will enjoy it and probably find some interesting information besides just the Dillon/Kennedy relationship.
Also, please take this little correction of your sarcasm in the first sentence in the friendly manner which it is intended. Nothing grammatically wrong with your parenthetical remark but if I am correct there should be a question mark before the end parenthesis so it should look as follows:
You've done it again (why am I not surprised?).
An aside: reminds me of Reagan's remark in the 1980 debate: "There he goes again!" (words to that effect). His humour helped him win the debate and probably played a role in the electoral victory. Some have compared Reagan's wit and charisma to JFK's and I think there is some truth to the comparison.
Just try that again for clarity.
Tim,
Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.
-
Mark wrote:
You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note.
Mark, let me quote from your previous post your exact words and the me,bers can decide for themselves. These are your exact words on Post # 162:
However, his [Ted Sorsenson's] apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon.
If that does not say that Ted Sorenson and Douglas Dillon were fellow Republicans, I do not know what does.
Tim,
Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look like I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not.
I am glad you are going to read his book, however. I think you will enjoy it and probably find some interesting information besides just the Dillon/Kennedy relationship.
Also, please take this little correction of your sarcasm in the first sentence in the friendly manner which it is intended. Nothing grammatically wrong with your parenthetical remark but if I am correct there should be a question mark before the end parenthesis so it should look as follows:
You've done it again (why am I not surprised?).
An aside: reminds me of Reagan's remark in the 1980 debate: "There he goes again!" (words to that effect). His humour helped him win the debate and probably played a role in the electoral victory. Some have compared Reagan's wit and charisma to JFK's and I think there is some truth to the comparison.
-
Well, Mark, thanks for the sarcasm, as usual. Have I ever tried to tell anyone what not to read? Your remarks just seem to increase in stupidity with each passing day.
I gather, of course, that you have still not found the opportunity to read Sorenson.
I have no reason to believe he was a Republican, by the way.
He was a gifted speechwriter who at least helped JFK write "Profiles in Courage" and I believe he contributed a lot to JFL's success.
The two Kennedy biographers who were "present at the creation" (so to speak) were Sorenson and Scheslinger, but particularly Sorenson.
But apparently you lack the time to read Sorenson's biography of Kennedy. I understand it is easier, and probably more fun, to post sarcasm about me but let me respectfully suggest that reading will increase your knowledge while posting your irrelevancies accomplishes nothing.
I just find it incredible that someone can claim to be an "assassination researcher" without having read the basic books on the Kennedy administration by those who were involved with it. I suspect this would also surprise many other people who have "done their homework".
Tim,
You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note.
JFK's hiring of Sorenson, appointment of Dillon etc, showed what an exceptional Chief Executive JFK was. He wanted the best people, political and religious affiliations being secondary considerations at best. I know he made Bobby AG, but Bobby was outstanding as well. JFK made a great joke about it when asked why he appointed his brother to be Attorney-General without having ever practised in a legal firm, "I wanted to give him some legal experience before he goes into practise" JFK said.
Tim, you seem obsessed about me reading the Sorenson bio of JFK. Why just me? And why just it? Apparently, my reading it is the only way of preventing you from throwing another tantrum. OK, I'll read it........maybe.
-
Didn't Mac Wallace get probation for first degree murder? Yes, I would agree that the system has been corrupt for many years now.
As for Michael Jackson, I didn't know he was black.
Ron
Ron,
You crack me up
. -
Hi James,
The guy behind General Earle Wheeler (partially obscured by LeMay) might be General David Shoup (Marines). (Mark Stapleton)
Hi Mark,
I think you may be right about Shoup. Good call.
James
James,
Thanks for the ID on the others. For me, it's always difficult to identify LeMay without his stogie.
-
Hey Mark, I see you're posting today. The only conclusion I can draw is that you've done a little speed reading and made it through the Sorenson bio on JFK. You're such a bad boy.
Stan,
lol. Yes, it's quite amusing. Tim apparently wants to make it a requirement.
We're very lucky we have headmaster Tim to tell us what we must read (and presumably, what we must not read). Sorenson's bio must be the Holy Grail, the definitive work, the final word on the relationship between Douglas Dillon and JFK. He doesn't mention looking into Dillon's background and connections--that must be irrelevant. According to Dallek, Ted Sorenson was a lawyer from Lincoln, Nebraska. He came from a progressive Republican family and his father was a former Nebraska Attorney General. I believe he was a good friend of JFK's and a great speechwriter. Some were surprised that JFK hired him, being non-Catholic. However, his apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon.
A small point re speed reading--Manchester mentions that JFK could speed read at 1200wpm. Can anyone confirm this to be true? It's not mentioned in Dallek's biography of JFK. Just curious.
-
I've got Max Taylor and Curt LeMay. Can anyone ID the others? (Greg Wagner)
Hi Greg,
Yep, Taylor front left, LeMay front right. I believe that is Gen. Earle Wheeler behind Taylor and Adm. David McDonald behind LeMay. At the back on the left could be Gen. John McConnell but I'm not 100% on that one.
FWIW.
James
Hi James,
The guy behind General Earle Wheeler (partially obscured by LeMay) might be General David Shoup (Marines). Hard to tell, but looks similar from the photos I've seen and he wore glasses. Nice photo, Greg--I'd love to see the one of a distressed Ike that you mentioned. A man of integrity, IMO.
-
Dammit, Greg. Now you have me anxious to see those photographs. Anyone?
Whomever was behind the Kennedy assassination -- FWIW, I think that power was the Eastern Establishment/American Banking/US War Industry -- it could not have been accomplished without the approval and co-operation of the US military. Of course, the military could've been used, just like Oswald, just like the Cubans, just like the CIA. The men in the shadows are never seen. That's part of their power. They throw out all the rest for us to consider and digest. David Atlee Philllips, James Angleton, E. Howard Hunt, The Tramps, Multiple Oswalds, Badgeman, Texas Oil, LBJ and Hoover, Richard Nixon, Guy Banister, David Ferrie. So we can play the popular board game of, "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?". Over forty years now, and still...that's true power.
What differentiates the military from US Banking and the War Industry?
What happens to a president when he f*cks with the Federal Reserve?
For whom did John McCloy and Allen Dulles really work? If you answer that question, I think you get really close to the center of the conspiracy that murdered John Kennedy.
Stan,
"What differentiates the military from US Banking and the War industry?". Good question. There's a bit of circumstantial evidence which points to the Federal Reserve, owned by major U.S. and European Banking interests. This was the removal of the notes printed under the JFK Administration which omitted reference to the FR and replaced it with "United States Banknote". Their swift removal from circulation after JFK's death might mean nothing. If so it's another coincidence.
-
Bernice,
Many thanks for the material. Lucky I've got tomorrow off. This could be very interesting.
-
I have no idea what Dillion may or may not have done, since he has never entered my areas of research. Therefore, I am neutral. I believe I may read Sorenson, as Tim suggests.
I am just no longer into the Political picture as I once was. I will also add that I am in fact, a registered Republican and I also voted for Nixon. At the time. I believed Nixon was the best man for the job, so to speak. I did not approve of the Kenendy's and their lifestyles. Most likely I also believed all the Right Wing Propaganda of that era....although nothing extreme.
I also believed that because Nixon had been VP under Ike, that he would be the best President. I was also a very different type person, then I am today. Today, I do not stick to the Republican nor the Democrat platform If I choose to vote, I darn sure would vote for whomever I choose to vote for. I did not vote for our current President, nor am I pleased with him. I have had some major exchanges with close relatives who believe our current President is the greatest thing, this country has ever had. and exactly what this country needs. Needless to say I do not agree!!
It was for a long time, very hard for me to even think that Nixon would do all that has been proclaimed about him in Watergate. I wanted to believe there were other answers that would hopefully exonerate him. But then one day, I did accept the truth. He was not whom, or what I had believed him to be. For sure, I did not want to believe he may have had, at the very least, prior knowledge, about JFK's Assassination. Yet, the more I have looked at what all went down in regard to Nixon and the day of the Assn. I do accept the possibility, he may have had prior knowledge. I do not know this to be fact and even hate to believe it might be true, but I do now have to re-evaluate my previous beliefs.
Just because I did not vote for JFK, does not indicate that I was not distraught over his assn.
In fact, I have been studying the Assn for many years. ...probably since the day it occurred. This was our country's President and he was assn. right on the street for the world to see. This was unreal....such things do not occur in our country. Yet they do, and they did. Perhaps my nievenes changed on that day!
Now on to friend turning against friend! I have to believe it does happen...a whole lot.
Lets play, "what if"......
You are a Member of a Board of Directors and the Chairman, who is also your friend, is making some very bad decisions. He just will not listen to reason from the rest of the board directors. Somehow, this is affecting the whole Company. They are all screaming at the board to do something! Eventualy the board members decides to have a secret meeting, although probably unethical. Yet you all do feel justified, under the circumstances.
It is unanimous that somehing has to be done and matters taken into your own hands. Could be, since he is your friend you might volunteer to speak with him just one more time. So you do so and it is to no avail.
Another secret meeting is held and it is decided he has to go, in the best interests of the company. This hurts you very much, to turn against your friend and to be involved in a conspiracy to get rid of him. Then, another meeting is called, with the Chairman invited this time to be there. He is going to be asked to resign and if he refuses to do so, then other measures will need to be taken.
So......the day before the planned meeting, this Chairman has been found murdered. Now what? You did plot to get rid of him, even though murder was not in your head at all. ..and after all, this was your friend. So, it has never been proven who murdered him or even the reason. Perhaps there is also a cover up, among the board members, who do not ever reveal that there was a plan to get rid of him. Even if you decided to come clean and tell the truth, who is actually going to believe you? It is only your word against the rest of the board members. You even feel that one among you, did murder him, yet you really don't even know which board member it was, or even if it might have been the real plan and you were not privy to it.
It is very easy to say that we would speak out...but then there is also our family to think about. besides maybe our own life and livlihood. So, you had turned against your friend and conspired to get rid of him and yet you had belived it was for the right reasons and you also had no pre-knowledge that murdering him was involved. So, in this instance, are you guilty or not? You are definitely, at least guilty of a cover-up...and you cannot prove you had no pre-knowledge of a murder plan.
I believe this actualy did occur among some factions who believed that JFK had to go. I also believe this was all brought about, by the Fascist Regime., all the way up to the Military, to implement. Perhaps to some, this meant an impeachment by the Judicial process and not as a murder on the street. Yet, it did happen and was a real coup. ...and some who would not have gone along with such a plan, were perhaps caught up in the coversup, even though they have no idea what actually occurred, or I should also say, who was actually involved in the coup.
Friends do turn on friends, but usually it is for a bigger purpose, then the friendship can support. Unfortunately, sometimes there is, (whether right or wrong) a matter of principals before personalities.
What I am trying to say is that we cannot always make a blanket statement that a friend will not turn on a friend. I have no idea if Dillion turned on JFK or not. He may have or may not have. However, we always do need to research more then one or two books, that might actually be slanted one way or the other. If I choose to study about Dillion, (or anyone else) I will check out several sources of information, before even attempting to make a decision about him.
I do realize these are only my own opinions which I felt compelled to express in this thread.
Dixie
Dixie,
Nice post. Good points. I'm the same. Without pre-judging him, he's got strong connections with banking and finance and that sector wasn't in JFK's good books. Also, he was boss of the Secret Service. I'm going to research him too-- Bernice's material looks like a good start.
-
Mark, have you nothing better to do than call names?
Your theory that the plotters being "undecided what to do" after the assassination speaks for itself.
You wrote:
What is no coincidence, however, is your habit of reading motives into the postings of others which aren't there.
All I did was question the logic of your theory; I never speculated that you had some "hidden motive" in posting it so I do not understand that comment.
You, by the way, are the person who wrote:
You're a slippery little rodent. My post was in response to your claim in Post#50 that there were posts on this thread which were garbage. Aghast at the thought that this thread might go places other than Trafficante/Castro/Pro-Castro Cubans, Tim thinks "how do I get my material onto centre stage?". Answer: just say those posts are garbage--someone's bound to respond 'cause I've got more garbage than anyone there. True genius. Then claims that this often happens, which translates as "I use this strategy lots".
You talk about reading a motive into something! You claimed I argued that the claims that Dillon was a conspirator "garbage", anticipating that someone would then claim my "Castro did it" scenario was garbage so that debate would restart on this thread. That is a preposterous theory! (But perhaps I wish I WAS that clever.)
Again, I suggest you quit posting until you read the history of the period. To quote a famous saying: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
And to quote another famous saying, "How many forum members concur with your theory, Tim?
-
Mark wrote:
Ron,
From the realms of wild speculation. Could the half hour delay be related the plotters being undecided as to the strategy they wished to implement.
In my opinion, this scenario is illogical.
The plotters carefuly plotted the assassination.
They spent months preparing the frame on the patsy.
Presumably, the only thing that went wrong with their careful plans was that LHO was caught alive. Although I raise another possibility: if they were to frame LHO as the sole assassin (either as a Castro man or as a nut) they may not have wanted to have a frontal shot but it became necessary when the rear shooter did not finish JFK.
But to assume that they had not thought in advance what to do after the assassination, with all the careful thought that had gone into it, makes no sense, in my opinion.
Tim,
You really are a master of misattribution. I haven't assumed the plotters gave no thought to the aftermath of the assassination, as you incorrectly assert. On the contrary, a plan to shut down the DC telecommunications system shows great pre-planning, if this is what they did. My point was that with a scheme of this scope and complexity, a modicum of flexibility must be factored in, allowing the conspirators to, if necessary, modify their strategy as events transpire in the critical period following the assassination. Flexibility to adapt the plan at short notice would be the hallmark of any prudent plan. Don't forget the DPD was in the mix, performing with the clinical efficiency of the Keystone cops, so anything was possible. They may have been waiting to be informed of LHO's whereabouts and fate, for example. As I said, I'm only speculating, offering a suggestion. Frankly, after reading the posts of Robert, Larry and Ron, I'm inclined to think it might have been a coincidence, although I'm very suspicious of that word. What is no coincidence, however, is your habit of reading motives into the postings of others which aren't there. If your credibility shrinks any more, I'll have to start referring to you as Tiny Tim.
-
By the way, I went back and checked.
It was MARK who first brought up the "Castro did it" scenario on Post #61, on page 5 of this thread. Prior to that time, not a single one of my posts on this thread had anything to do with the "Castro scenario". I just was talking about how dumb it is, and immoral, in my opinion, to be accusing Douglas Dillon of murdering his close friend JFK.
I am confident that if you check the other posts in which the "Castro scenario" came up you will find that I am not the one who started it.
Tim,
You're a slippery little rodent. My post was in response to your claim in Post#50 that there were posts on this thread which were garbage. Aghast at the thought that this thread might go places other than Trafficante/Castro/Pro-Castro Cubans, Tim thinks "how do I get my material onto centre stage?". Answer: just say those posts are garbage--someone's bound to respond 'cause I've got more garbage than anyone there. True genius. Then claims that this often happens, which translates as "I use this strategy lots".
Despite all that, this has turned into a very interesting thread, covering a good range of controversial issues. It's been fascinating to watch Robert clinically dispose of most of your assertions. Have you responded yet ? You see, I don't know as much as you on the Castro/Mob theory on the assassination. I doubt if I ever will as you've obviously devoted thousands of hours to it. Trouble is, those who do know what they're talking about on your theory don't appear to back you up. Robert Charles-Dunne and Mark Knight seem to know what they're talking about but still no backers. What conclusion do I draw?
The funny thing is that if anything new comes out of this thread, it might be some research into the background of C. Douglas Dillon. I've never seen such a tantrum about the naming of a suspect and there's been many patriotic Americans named as suspects including 2 Presidents and the joint chiefs. Fascinating.
-
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
Ron,
From the realms of wild speculation. Could the half hour delay be related the plotters being undecided as to the strategy they wished to implement.
-
Part two will be posted on Monday. Any comments so far Gentlemen?
Steve.
Steve,
Good post. Have to go out now, but I will comment on it later.
-
Well OK, having worked with electromechanical and computerized phone
switches 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.
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.
-
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
David,
Thanks for that. I was in Vegas in '98. Great weather. Memorable town.
-
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...
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.
.
We're very lucky we have headmaster Tim to tell us what we must read (and presumably, what we must not read). Sorenson's bio must be the Holy Grail, the definitive work, the final word on the relationship between Douglas Dillon and JFK. He doesn't mention looking into Dillon's background and connections--that must be irrelevant.
The Communication Breakdown
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Tim,
Thank you. I would prefer you to quote the author verbatim rather than any summaries, though. It only has to be the main points, perhaps only a couple of sentences--the main points which convinced you that Dillon's involvement was not possible. I eagerly await your response.