Mark Stapleton

I think I must be getting slow in my old age because, as John stated, there's a large thread on this very subject under the title "William Greer and JFK" started by James Richards. My thanks to all the contributors on that, it's a very interesting thread if you're interested in this small aspect of the case. Most remarkable revelation, IMO, is that Bill Greer didn't personally like JFK, as told to Palamara by Greer's son. Not quite enough evidence to prove guilt, IMO, but provocative all the same.

Tim Gratz Posted Today, 07:45 AM

  If the limo was slowing was it to help the agent climb on the back and to minimize the risk of injury to Jackie? Just a thought.

From what I recall occurred according to the Zapruder film, the limo starts to slow down, Kennedy gets shot in the head. Simultaenously the SS agent leaves the SS car and runs for the President's limo, and sees his head blown to pieces before he reaches the car. That's when Jackie climbs onto the trunk to pick up a piece of JFK's skull.

In my view the limo was slowing down before the agent left the follow-up car.

I don't think any radio traffic on the SS radio's or any of the testimony says anything about requesting the Presidential limo to slow down so another agent can reach it from the back. Afterall there were already two agents in the car. Another picture shows the break lights on as the agent has just left the SS follow-up car.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Antti,

Yes, this is what I recall from the Z film also. The limo actually slowed a couple of seconds before the agent climbed in back (I might be wrong here). However, I think I read where one of the close witnesses, perhaps Moorman, was harshly critical of the driver when interviewed immediately after the assassination. It's probably understandable under the circumstances that Greer wasn't subjected to an inquisition on this but it would be very interesting to know for sure whether it did actually stop. It's also possible that stopping the car was a panic reaction by Greer or that he anticipated too early that the agent was climbing in. It's a small but interesting part of the case, IMO, and the WC didn't try to make it any clearer.

Very interesting discussion. To slightly extend the debate a little, a question that has always interested me is whether the Z film was altered to conceal the actions of Bill Greer. Did he briefly bring the President's car to a dead stop before the kill shot? Or has that been disproved?

Mark wrote:

Also, where's your proof that JFK's murder was the FIRST TIME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that a leader was murdered over a tax issue, as you so sensationally describe it? Do you possess the documented, authenticated reasons for all other political assassinations?

Mark, in recorded history there have been 1,378 political assassinations, none of which related to changes in tax policy. I am categorizing the motives behind each one.---Just kidding.

My point is that I am UNAWARE of any other assassination attributed to such an arcane motive as a tax deduction so I leave it to the proponents of that theory to list other examples or to admit that it is their position that the Kennedy assassination was sui generis.

No room for Fidel?  Gosh, Mark, Castro on September 7, 1963 articulated the reason he would have to retaliate if American efforts on his life continued.

No one has yet offered one scintilla of evidence that an oil baron or anyone who ever even stepped foot in Suite 8F had anything to do with the assassination.

We can speculate who killed JFK until the cows come home.  As you pointed out, he had made many enemies.  But speculation is not evidence.  I await the evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Despite my suspicion that your continuing intransigence is a very funny gag at our expense, I must point out that this "arcane" tax deduction which you dismiss as a possible assassination motive is not really a tax deduction at all. I might have misled you by describing it as such in an earlier post. If you refer to John Simkin's illustration in the thread titled "Oil Depletion Allowance--Good or Bad" you'll see that the ODA is not an expense like Postage, Rent or Salaries. These expenses can be written off (for tax purposes) only insofar as they are incurred in the normal course of earning an assessable income eg. if you spend $100 on Postage in any given accounting period, then you are entitled to a tax deduction of $100. The ODA, however, by a miracle of Texas logic, departs from the "Expenses" side of the ledger and attaches itself to the "Revenue" side. ie. The 27.5% is deducted from revenue earned, not expenses incurred---a far greater income tax deduction. Why else would the Texas lobby lock it up in committees for 30 years?

Regarding your request that opponents of your theory have not provided a "scintilla" of evidence, what would you like Tim--- a taped confession corroborated by eyewitness testimony? a DVD of the entire assassination tableau with a narrative by NBC ending with rolling credits for all participants? Authenticated minutes of the final assassination planning meeting complete with notes and attachments? Say the word and they'll be winging their way to your door forthwith. "Show me the evidence" he says. The world ain't ready for another Gerry Posner. You gagmeister.

Mark, I meant, of course, any assassination other than John's contention that it was the motive behind JFK's.

Having offered none other I assume you agree then ihat if in fact the preservation of the oil depletion allowance was the motive behind JFK's death it was the FIRST TIME IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that a political leader was murdered over a provision of the tax code?  I mean, it is preposterous on its face, in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

For your information, yes I do believe that JFK's determination to scrap the oil depletion allowance was one of the factors behind the assassination. There were others. In fact, when reading about his short time as President the only thing that surprises me is that he wasn't assassinated earlier. The queue of people who must have wished him ill included the military (Joint Chiefs), arms manufacturers, the oil industry, steel executives, elements of the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, girlie boy Hoover, the Israeli Government and LBJ. Sorry Tim, can't find a place for Castro anywhere. Haven't you been reading John's postings on the Suite 8F Group or Larry's postings dealing with Billy Sol Estes and the murders implicating the Johnson/Carter group? The evidence of Texas involvement is compelling, IMO.

Also, where's your proof that JFK's murder was the FIRST TIME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that a leader was murdered over a tax issue, as you so sensationally describe it? Do you possess the documented, authenticated reasons for all other political assassinations?

Eccl. 1:9 RSV :  What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun."

There have certainly been at least one hundred political assassinations throughout history.

John, are you aware of ANY assasination motivated by a desire to prevent a change in the tax laws of the jurisdiction?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can tell you one, Tim. The assassination of JFK.

Hi Mark.

Nothing much wrong with your memory.The Detective was Stephen White,

and most commentators belive he is speaking about Mitre Sq. He talks about

watching a certain alley behind Whitechapel Rd for five nights, The man he claims

to have seen is described thusly. 5ft 10ins, shabbily dressed, although the cloths

had once been of a good"cut",face long & thin "delicate nostrils, hair jet black

complexion sallow. The most striking thing about him though, was the brilliance

of his eyes "Like two glow worms".Hands snow white, fingers long & tapering.

I am a bit pushed for time today(or so my wife tells me.) Iwill respond to your

other points tomorrow. Hope this has been of help.

PS I will also post on Strides killer later, Others have suggested him, but i've

got some more evidence you might find interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

Thanks for that. I feel we're fortunate to have a genuine "Ripperologist" to bounce ideas off. I'm up to my ears in Kennedy books at the moment but I still have a keen interest in this case. Looking forward to your further postings.

I always believed that this description, coupled with Hutchinson's, were the most crucial in the case. However, it's hard to reconcile the two. Hutchinson's man might not have been the Ripper, though, as there is still a lag of one hour or so between Hutchinson's departure and the cry of "murder" heard by Mary Kelly's neighbour. She may have gone looking for one more client, as we know she was way behind in the rent. Does Detective White's description mention approximate age or presence of a moustache? Also, how tall was Monty Druitt? I'm predicting he would have been reasonably tall in order to throw down all those quick deliveries.

Mark, a number of things suggest themselves in answer to your question.

First with respect to LHO it is likely, IMO, he was acting for a US intelligence agency. If so, and if the conspiracy was conceived in Cuba, then using LHO as the patsy makes perfect sense. Obviously the CIA would want a cover-up if it thought one of its agents went nutso and killed Kennedy. Or what if the CIA thought its agent had been doubled but could never prove it? Again, an assured cover-up.

Anyone, I think, who argues that LHO was linked to a US intelligence agency, whether CIA or military intelligence, makes the case that exculpates anyone from our side who knew his true role. One does not use one's own agent as a "patsy".

The murder of LHO by Ruby makes Ruby the single person that everyone can agree was involved in the conspiracy. Interestingly, there exists some evidence linking Ruby to Communism as well as to Cuba. But Ruby's role can be explained merely by his link to Santo Trafficante, Jr.

IF you have read my posts you know it is my scenario that Trafficante was acting as an agent for Castro in exchange for a protected drug route through Cuba. If we forget all the evidence of Castro agents, up to even Fabian Escalante, in Dallas--although there is no reason such evidence should be ignored--then Castro could have sponsored the assassination merely by contracting Trafficante to do it for him. The role of Trafficante in the assassination is, in my opinion, fairly clear: first, he predicted it in 1962; second, he admitted his participation to his lawyer. One thing that links it back to Castro is the fairly well-accepted assumption that Cubela was a Castro "dangle" and Trafficante's close ties to Cubela.

Plus of course the fairly clear indication that the Trafficante organization whacked Rosselli.

Did I get all your questions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Thanks for your reply. When you say "one does not use one's own agent as a patsy" I disagree. It's fine to use one's own agent as a patsy providing one has the capacity to silence one's own agent before he has the opportunity to implicate those higher up on one's totem pole, so to speak. Does one agree?

As for Ruby, where's the evidence linking him to Communism? I believe he visited Cuba in the pre-Castro days but I don't see how that links him to Communism. He may have had ties to Trafficante, but his underworld associations are now well known. In any case, the underworld figure pulling all their strings was, IMO, Meyer Lansky. As for Trafficante confessing participation to his lawyer, I wouldn't place great faith in what mobster's lawyers say---they're often as bent as their clients.

Mark.

Thanks for your continued interest. I dont belive ive posted a "theory"

for rebutal, just a few questions about the Stride murder scene.

Why no mutilation? there was time, but no! he leaves Stride, walks

three quarters of a mile, finds Eddowes, kills her, performs the mutilations

he could have inflicted on Stride, leaves and then writes a chalk message

in Ghoulston St, & all this whilst being hotly persued by the Police?

Do you feel that the case for Berner St being markedly differnt to the other

murder sights is well made?

I belive that the Police could have, & should have arrested Strides killer

the very next day. After all, he presents himself at the station at 8-00am

that morning!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

Thanks for your reply. From memory, I thought the killer was disturbed(interrupted) during the Stride murder. Wasn't that borne out by the "JTR' letter? Not that I place any faith in them, probably 2 and maybe all 3 were fakes. Whoa! What's this? The killer presents himself at the station next morning? I'm all ears(and eyes)!. Personally, I believe the killer was one of the 3 mentioned in Anderson's(?) notes -- Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog. In one of the books I read some years ago, there was a great description, IMO, of the killer. I'm going from memory here so I'm glad to be corrected as it probably won't be totally accurate.... a cop on the beat patrolling (maybe) Mitre Square gave a description of a man who walked hurriedly past him shortly before one of the victims was discovered. From memory he stated he was young - mid to late twenties - pale complexion, looked a bit dainty even but with blazing, wild eyes. The cop later regretted not questioning him.... Can you tell me who the cop was? It's one of the more obscure facts of the case and it's hard to dig up on the net.

Anyway, who was this contrite suspect? Is this widely documented or a new discovery?

Pat wrote:

The entire argument that Castro would risk WW3 to kill Kennedy relies on the presumption that Castro saw no other way to avert his own murder. Since Castro had not sent Kennedy any personal warnings or attempted any urgent personal contact, there is no reason to believe that level of desperation existed.

Pat, if Castro's statement on September 7, 1963 was not an express warning to JFK ("American political leaders") what was it?  What else was he to do, call JFK on the phone and say, "Hey, buddy, call it off or you'll get yours!"  The fact that his warning was public not private only added emphasis to it.

As to the argument why had Castro not killed the underlings, what good would that do if they were following administration policy?  They were replaceable and would certainly be replaced with others following the same policy.

And of course Castro executed the men the CIA sent into Cuba to kill him.

The murder of JFK could be considered an act of desperation by a cornered man but so, of course, could the plot to bomb New York City with 500 kilos of dynamite on the day after Thanksgiving of 1962.  Which is why that 1962 incident is so relevant to our discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

You just don't give up on this Castro thing. You still haven't answered the issues of LHO and Jack Ruby, which I asked you about on another thread. Namely, why would Fidel frame a man who had an active profile within Communist circles--whether genuine or not? And if Fidel didn't frame him, why would the CIA, FBI, DPD, US Government, US media etc all join forces to cover for Fidel, for heaven's sake? Also, why did Ruby kill LHO? So Castro wouldn't be exposed? I thought Ruby wanted Castro out, like everyone else in the mob did. Are you arguing that Ruby was genuine when he initially stated that he killed LHO to save Jackie and the kids from enduring a courtroom trial, even though he later contradicted this? The Castro/Soviet argument is all upside down. You're just cherry picking quotes and heresay and trying to make them fit your premise. So what if Castro made threatening statements directed at the U.S.? He's a dictator, they often make inflammatory statements. It doesn't mean the case is closed. Unless you can credibly explain LHO and Jack Ruby's involement, Castro can't be a serious contender.

Before I move on to profile the murder of Catharine Eddowes, I would like

to examine in more detail some interesting aspects of the Liz Stride murder.

            THE MURDER SITES

1,Stride-Dutfields yard, well lit, close to a busy club.

2,Nicholls-Bucks row, poorly lit quite street with few pedestrians

3, Chapman-Hanbury St, a quite dark backyard.

4, Eddowes-Mitre Sq, dark enclosed square with dark entrances.

5, Kelly-Millers Court, single room in a quiet court off Dorset St.

Stride was murdered in a well lit, busy area, the other sites were quieter,

and poorly lit, areas the killer knew there was little chance of discovery.

It must also be accepted, due to p/m evidence that:

1, Stride was on her back when killed, face upwards:

2, The killer was to the left of the body, on Strides right side:

(The blood flowed away from her murderer )

3, Face held in the left hand. (Bruise to right jaw Thumb print)

4, Weapon held in right hand.

We have a right handed killer who doe's not, mutilate the body despite

having 15 mins in which to do so,(Schartz-Diemschultz) and chooses

a well lit, busy area in which to do his grizzly work.

Obviously different M/O= different killer?????????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

It's a big jump. The killer changed his M/O anyway, with the murder of Kelly. All the "right handed-- left handed" stuff can be overestimated, IMO. Some of the doctor's reports contradicted each other. Also, the killer could have been

ambidextrous. The best rebuttal of your theory is, however, that if there were two killers it's even more strange that the case remained unsolved. Surely one of them would have been caught.

Mike and Mel,

Welcome to the forum. I agree with other members that you are entitled to argue your case and look I forward to reading your side of the debate.

Just a couple of warm-ups before the pace bowlers come on:

1. Like Stephen, I can't imagine how LHO could be described as a crazed psychotic. The way he reacted to his predicament is the same way any intelligent, rational, innocent person would.

2. The thing that irritates me most about LN theorists is the way they rebut arguments by saying, "but where's the evidence?". This, to me, is a Homer Simpson rebuttal. Firstly, much evidence was destroyed or removed--the president's car was repaired immediately and all the evidence destroyed, for example. Also, it presupposes that anyone who doubts the WC bears the burden of proof. Mel, there was no LHO trial, no conviction, so no-one bears that burden. If anything, it should be you who is asked that question, because, as John pointed out, the official verdict, as at 1979, is conspiracy.

p.s. I don't believe in moon landing conspiracies.

Mel.

Thank you for the citation, Ido not consider myself either c/t or L/n

Just a humble seeker of the truth. some see conspiracy everywhere,

others nowhere. As I have indicated my main area of research

(20 years and counting) is the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

many times I, and other serious researchers have rebutted the

latest nonsence,Prince eddie,Sir William Gull,Walter Sickert,

did it, only to see it rehabilitated later as the next best seller.

I do however feel that those in power, are more than capable

of conspiring to ensure that the status quo remains in tact.

I look foward to your next post, Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

You might have started as a Ripper man, but once assassinology gets in your blood, you're hooked. We're all slaves now.

Pat wrote:

It's obvious to me that the CIA et al had grown sick of the anti Castro forces and were hoping they'd just disappear. I believe the anti Castro forces knew this. There's your motive. They were the ones who had nothing to lose.

This is an interesting point. The case presented in "Invisible Government" by David Wise and Thomas B. Ross tends to support this. The book is discussed at greater length on another thread. By the time of the Bay of Pigs, the CIA had assembled quite a fleet of leased vessels and B26 and C46 planes. When they suddenly relocated their base from Guatemala to Nicaragua, ostensibly for political reasons, it was quite an effort. It was becoming unwieldy. There was also the ever present chore of maintaining morale. I think the CIA got sick of them early in the piece. Which makes them sitting ducks for a group persuasive enough to convince the anti-Castro forces that there was something in it for them if they would lend their assistance. Doublecrossing them by not invading Cuba wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem--some were killed shortly after the assassination.

Who would that group be? Possibly US Military Intelligence, at the urging of the JCS. If this scenario were accurate, even the JCS may not have been the originator of the plan. The plot keeps thickening.

Mark wrote:

"Those trying to tailor an assassination to compliment their political philosophy are easily exposed." 

I assume this comment must be directed at the many leftists to attempt to argue that Kennedy was killed by, as Dawn put it, "the powers that be", but who offer not one scintilla of evidence to support that theory.

It may be that those who, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, proclaimed that Castro did it were motivated, at least in part, by anti-Communism. It amazes me that so many members of the Forum seem incapable of understanding that when I suggest that Castro did it it is not related to or motivated by my admittedly right-of-center views. For I make it clear that Castro's motive was not anti-Americanism but self-preservation: to stop the CIA plots to kill him. Trujillo, a right-wing dictatior, could have had the same motivation. I am critical of all members of American government who condoned murder as an instrument of our foreign policy. This is a sentiment that should be shared by persons of all political philosophies. I would note that the man who  initiated contracting with the Mafia to kill Castro was a liberal CIA official and a Kennedy official.

Mark also wrote:

"Why then would the Soviets have LHO, a man with Communist leanings, in Dallas pointing suspicion right back at them?"

Mark, do you then take the position that Oswald was a definite Communist-leading leftist?  Many people believe, as I do, that Oswald was probably working for US intelligence. If Oswald was a patsy, he was presumably set-up by Communists who knew his connections to US intelligence, knowing that those connections would guarantee a cover-up. It would be foolhardy indeed for the CIA to use as a patsy someone who could be connected to the CIA. The only rational explanation would be that Oswald was set up by renegade elements of the CIA who did not know of his connections to US intelligence. It seems to me that if Oswald was connected to US intelligence that fact almost conclusively rules out US intelligence as part of the conspiracy. Certainly there were genuine leftists who could have been made the patsy if necessary.

Frankly what might make me reevaluate my position was if I was convinced that Oswald was a genuine leftist but not in fact a KGB agent.  Then I agree it would make no sense for the Soviets or Cubans to pin the assassination on him.

Your point that if Communists were behind the assassination they would have shut up and supported the lone nut theory is one, however, that merits serious consideration. One possible explanation is that the Communists arguning a right-wing conspiracy were not in fact aware that it was a Communist plot. I assume Communist intelligence also employed compartmentalization.

It is necessary to evaluate all possible scenarios.  Another explanation is that Castro did it but without official Soviet sponsorship and those Soviets denouncing the lone nut theory may have even thought an investigation would prove CIA involvement if, as they suspected, Oswald was a CIA agent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Your reply concerning researchers tailoring their theories to their political persuasions is acknowledged. I probably should have worded that sentence more carefully.

On your further suggested scenario re LHO, I agree LHO was working for one or both of the agencies but this only makes it more likely, IMO, that the plot had its genesis in the USA. My point about the Soviet/KGB theory is that if they were behind the assassination why would they frame an innocent man with (percieved) communist leanings? Or are you saying the local authorities framed LHO as a favor to the real plotters (Soviet/KGB)? The only remaining alternative is that you think LHO is guilty--but you believe, like me, that he was working for US Intelligence. It seems that you're trying to twist the facts in order to fit them into a predetermined outcome.

The other thing that makes the Soviet/KGB scenario so unlikely is how did the plotters convince Ruby to help out? He had no leftist sympathies at all. Another favor from the local authorities?

Castro also knew about JFK's plot to kill him.

If Castro knew about a plot by anyone else to kill JFK, there is certainly no evidence anywhere to suggest that he communicated that knowledge to any authority in the U.S.  It certainly would have been a way for Castro to ingratiate himself with JFK.  When a purported enemy saves your life, the enmity can quickly disappear.

Therefore, the reasoning must be that either the plot was Communist intitiated or that Castro wanted JFK dead (due to the continuing US plots against him).

By the way, as a bit of an alternative on my scenario, Gerry Hemming recently advised me that he believes the Soviet military intelligence was behind the plot and the KGB was trying to stop it.

I reiterate what seems an obvious point:  KGB foreknowledge of the assassination (if true) is an extremely salient matter to be used in evaluating any theory of the assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you ponder this point for me, Tim, as I'm having trouble figuring out your reasoning:

At the time of the assassination, there were many rumours flying about concerning the possibility of JFK's assassination. Last month I was looking at old newspapers at the N.S.W. library and there was a reference to a plot to kill JFK in an Australian newspaper a few days prior to the assassination. What I'm arguing is that maybe the KGB had foreknowledge of the plot to kill JFK---they only had to read the papers for that---but so did many other people/groups. The suggestion that the KGB or Soviet military intelligence was behind the plot (if Gerry Hemming told you this he either has a good sense of humor or he doesn't know as much as I thought he did) is bizarre. Why then would the Soviets have LHO, a man with Communist leanings, in Dallas pointing suspicion right back at them? Why also would they immediately declare that they didn't believe the official lone nut explanation of the crime? (Buchanan, p.13). Agreeing with the LNT puts them in the clear, doesn't it?

Those trying to tailor an assassination theory to compliment their political philosophy are easily exposed.

Stephen,

Sorry for the brief interruption. Great storybook concept. Couple of things:

1. If you're including the Emma Smith murder, as some do, then you're exonerating Oswald Puckridge. I'm inclined to think you're making him up as I've never heard of him, but everything else in your story checks out so I guess you're just throwing him in as a red herring---unless you exclude the Smith murder OR you have him as the second killer, which I fear you do.

2. I'll reveal who I believe it was after your dissertation.

Please continue the ripping yarn....................

Tim's claim that LBJ, through Cliiff Carter, deleted all reference to a communist conspiracy in LHO's indictment is also a crock. It seems likely that LBJ did this after reaching consensus with certain people that the LNT was the official story. The consensus could only be reached, IMO, after undertakings were made that LHO would die before any trial, burying a genuine investigation with him. IMO, searching for any record left by LBJ revealing the identity of these certain people is wasting time. LBJ seems to have been one of the cleverest and most cunning of politicians and any records left to scrutiny by him would most likely push investigators in the wrong direction.

The only problem I have with Buchanan's book is he that states (p.188) that any involvement by LBJ would be "fantastic". I can forgive him for this because he wouldn't have known things about LBJ that we know now.

Tim,

Are you seriously suggesting that a section of the Soviet Politburo were involved in killing JFK as a roundabout way of getting rid of Khrushchev? Surely there were easier ways to get rid of him than risking a nuclear war.

p.s. you misspelt the author's name thrice.

How about all of the above?

If one person seems a sure conspirator, it is Santo Trafficante, Jr., who admitted his participation to his attorney.

Trafficante was requested by Hoffa, through that same attorney, to kill Kennedy.  Trafficante may very well have received a similar request from Castro, who was allowing Trafficante to use Cuba to ship drugs into the U.S.  (Is it only a coincidence that everytime a group of assassins went into Cuba (under the supposed aegis of Trafficante) they were immediately caught?  And through his associate Rosselli Trafficante could have even involved anti-Castro Cubans, perhaps even renegade elements of the CIA.  Someone has called assassination "politics by bloodshed" (provided the assassination is a political act rather than an act of irrational lunacy).  So perhaps there were strange bedfellows who participated in the assassination.  The participation of disparate factions, each of whom had reasons for desiring Kennedy's death, may have guaranteed the success of the plot and the inevitability of the cover-up.

Trafficante was in a unique position to put those groups together.  And, in my opinion, he had the brains to do it.  There is a reason he was the only major Mafia chief never to spend a day in prison and, be it not forgotten, the only mafioso involved in the plots against Castro to escape a violent death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

If, as you suggest, Santo Trafficante Jnr. masterminded the assassination then how did he persuade LBJ to empanel the WC? How did he persuade the DPD to destroy evidence? How did he persuade the FBI and the Secret Service to harass witnesses into changing their statements? And how did he dissuade the American media from laughing at the Warren Report?

When I asked if the CIA and Mossad worked together back in 1963, James Files mentioned to me there were Mossad people present in Dealey Plaza he recognized. He didn’t want to elaborate other than “they had their aerial pictures and Langley had theirs” because he wasn’t sure if that was still classified information.

Has anyone obtained either the CIA or Mossad aerial photos of Dealey Plaza? Were the CIA aerials part of the documents released to the public from 1994 to 1998 as part of the JFK Assassination records?

Thanks, Jeff

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jeff,

Did Mossad possess aerial pictures of Dealey Plaza? I've read elsewhere that Mossad knew of the assassination in advance.

John Simkin Posted Today, 01:11 PM

  While researching Operation Mockingbird I came across the case of Angus Mackenzie. It is an interesting story that JFK researchers might not be aware of.

Angus Mackenzie was born in 1950. He worked as an investigative journalist and had articles published in Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, Washington Post, San Francisco Examiner and the Columbia Journalism Review. During his short career he won or shared over two dozen journalism awards, including the National Magazine Award.

Mackenzie also taught at the School of Journalism at the University of California. Along with David Weir he was a co-founder of the Center for Investigative Reporting, where he managed contracts with 60 Minutes, 20/20, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, and many other outlets.

Mackenzie was particularly interested in the covert activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. Over many years he accumulated evidence of the CIA's systematic efforts to suppress and censor information. Mackenzie discovered that this covert operations originated during the Cold War as the CIA instituted programs of domestic surveillance and agent provocateur activities. This included infiltrating organizations to setting up CIA-front student groups.

Angus Mackenzie died on 13th May, 1994. He was aged only 43. The manuscript he had been working on for fifteen years was completed and edited by his friends. Secrets: The CIA's War at Home, was published in 1998.

The book is well worth buying. You can read sections of the book here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Secr...AWarAtHome.html

Interesting. Let me guess, he committed "suicide" by firing a shotgun in his mouth?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm betting it's a fishing accident.

After all, how many forum members would be willing to ruin their careers in order to maintain the idea that JFK was assassinated as part of a conspiracy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting question.

John,

I've never researched the RFK murder because I always thought it was an open and shut lone nut case (just the way the MIC/Agencies like it). However, in view of all that has been disclosed on the JFK threads about Governments, Agencies and power groups and their convoluted workings, nothing at all would surprise.

I seem to recall a doco I saw on TV where RFK was asked, just prior to his assassination, whether, if he was to win the nomination and presidency, he would revisit the assassination of his brother. I think his answer was something like, "I'll be in a great position to do that". Another observation that can be made about these things, IMO, is that when the authorities say "look left" it is usually best to look right and vice versa. Immediately after JFK was murdered, everyone from LBJ down was trying to persuade the public that it was communist(s) responsible when, in reality, Castro or Kruschev would have no reason to murder a President who was attempting to normalise relations and enter treaty negotiations with them, against the advice of many in his own forces. So when a Palestinian, lone nut assassin materialises as if by magic, I start to look in the opposite direction, irredeemable cynic that I am.

The Israeli Government of the 1960's was an aggressive, bellicose force. The terrible memories of the holocaust were less than two decades old and they were determined, with justification, that it should never be repeated. Their behavior during the Suez crisis and their attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 recieves scant media analysis. The Liberty coverup was another of LBJ's dubious legacies to his people, where sailors on that ship were threatened with court martial if they spoke out, despite the fact that 34 American servicemen were killed. I also have never seen it mentioned on this forum.

Finally, this is in the realm of pure speculation, but it's curious that by the time of the MLK and RFK assassinations, most people were skeptical about the WC findings and the LNT in general. Suddenly, two nice, pat, lone nut assassinations occur as if to lend some kind of post facto reinforcement to the WC findings. I can visualise the LNT supporters telling their friends, "see, I told ya'---this place is full of 'em". How's that for cynical?

After the war the MIC/CIA put a great deal of effort into Operation Mockingbird. After all, if you could control the media, you could control the political opinions of the electorate.

In recent years, especially since the development of the internet, this has become much more difficult. This forum is evidence of this.

MIC/CIA had to change its tactics. It became less important to keep control over the media. Instead, it concentrated on controlling the political parties. After all, it does not matter what people think if you can control the people who you vote for. The same is true in the UK. The majority of people are opposed to the Iraq War, our unfair tax system, privatisation, the size of our armaments budget, etc. However, our two parties, who dominate our political life, support these policies and therefore people have become apathetic about politics. The same seems to have happened in the US. If a third party in the US or the UK threatened this duopoly, you get bet the dirty tricks department of the intelligence services would be kept very busy.

What is the situation in Australia? Do you suffer from a corrupt duopoly?

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

My answer would be yes, but on a smaller scale than in the U.S. Here both major political parties are funded by the corporate sector, although the Labor Party still recieves significant funding from the union movement. Attempts by minor parties or Independents to advocate alternatives recieve the usual treatment, with the major parties always zealously guarding their "middle ground" status, thereby pushing any newcomers out into the cheap seats, where they can be easily portrayed as extremists.

While the advent of the Internet has provided a welcome forum for critical analysis of what the media tells us, I don't agree that MIC/Corporate lobby concentrates less on controlling the media. For them, media control is as important as political control. Despite many recent examples of dishonesty, people basically still believe what they see and hear through the media to be the truth. Few realise how simple it is for the media to lie by omission as well as commission. That's why many issues which should be comprehensively debated in the media never get a hearing. One example, among many, is tax avoidance by the mega rich. Without serious discussion of these issues in the media, politicians won't be forced to make the necessary legislative changes. The media will never seriously debate these issues because it would jeopardise the generous corporate patronage they enjoy--they don't want to offend their sponsors. An independant media, free of state control and corporate control, IMO, is the key to making the political system responsive to the wishes of the people and not just a select few.