Mark Knight

May I rest my case that a man who would oppose a sneak attack on our nation's enemies would not authorize a murder against his friend the President? Tim, I fail to see how you can reach an "if/therefore" relationship between the first part of your statement and the second. What if I said "May I rest my case that a man who would oppose using ketchup on french fries would not authorize its use on a hamburger"?? Would it be any less logical...or less true?? Perhaps the man who enjoys his french fries sans ketchup also enjoys the taste of ketchup on his burger; my point is, we cannot logically deduce the second merely from the first premise. Therefore, your argument is baseless. I STILL don't think Dillon had an active hand in the assassination...but your arguments are becoming weaker, logically speaking, as time goes on.

Gary Mack has so graciously reminded me via private message that it was Dave Powers, and NOT Kenny O'Donnell, who was filming from the motorcade...as Pat has pointed out in his post above. I apologize for the error, as it was one made of haste and not of an ignorance of--or willful disregard for--the facts.

Harry is making some very serious points in this thread that should NOT be overlooked. Great insight, Harry! Oswald was [remember Oswald...the subject of this thread?] probably the PERFECT patsy. With his bio, he could be painted as the loser nutcase that the WC made him...OR he could have been positioned as the brave ex-Marine who went undercover, posing as a defector, at great personal risk, for his country. His story could have been played either way, depending upon the outcome of events in Dallas. A case could be made that Oswald held menial jobs so that he could respond to assignments at a moment's notice, and the sparse lifestyle he lived was consistent with the concept of keeping a relatively low profile...except within the areas in which he was SUPPOSED to draw attention, the Dallas Russian-exile community and the New Orleans Cuban-agitator communities. Can ANYONE paint a detailed picture of Oswald's daily life, outside of Marina's accounts? Co-workers knew little of him, as did neighbors. Friends were few, and none [that I've read of] were what I would call "close" friends. So these facts allow Oswald to be a mere outline on an otherwise-blank canvas. And of the outline, it's truly difficult to determine what is the "real" Oswald and what is the "legend" one would need to create as an asset of an intelligence agency. He could be painted as either a patriot or a scoundrel, depending upon the needs of the hour. And it it THIS malleability of Oswald's image that renders him the TRUE enigma of the JFK assassination lore.

Tim, it is obvious that you are SO obsessed about the Dillon topic that you are attempting to turn this entire forum into a theater of the absurd...otherwise, why so many new threads on O'Donnell, when they ALL could have been contained within ONE? Methinks thou doth protest too loudly. Where many of us [myself included] have been content to accept that Dillon had no role in the assassination, your loud and long harangues against anyone who DARES mention the name of Dillon in connection with the assassination is causing ME to assume that maybe there WAS something afoot. Let's start with the link you posted for Dillon's "biography," which was merely some boilerplate put together for for GHWB's awarding Dillon the Medal of Freedom. Not only does it list that Dillon was Undersecretary of State from 6/12/1959 to 1/4/61 [and the State Department IS, or historically HAS BEEN, the primary cover for the CIA], but the commendation mentions Dillon's involvement with something called the "Mutual Security Program," in both the "military and non-military aspects." Now, I don't know if you're familiar with "governmentspeak," but that sounds to ME as if he was involved with the CIA in a BIG way...and, if the BOP is an indication of CIA ops--or perhaps Guatemala in the 1950's would be a more appropriate comaprison--then Dillon was apparently no stranger to using violence to effect a regime change. And your basic premise--that friends simply don't kill friends--is flat-out wrong. Friends kill friends in America every day...to get the girl, to get the job, to achieve power...and, in Texas, apparently they PLOT to kill friends so their daughters can become cheerleaders, if you recall the headlines. Surely your memory isn't so selective that you don't recall THAT tabloid-sounding headline? Or did Fox News Channel [a/k/a the Bush News Network] not carry that piece? I repeat...your premise that friends simply don't kill friends doesn't stand up to even LESS-than-rigorous scrutiny. Therefore, your argument on those grounds is invalid. By the way...I DID find O'Donnell's claim to have run out of film prior to the motorcade's entrance into Dealy Plaza to be quite "convenient," if NOT outright suspicious. Just another in a LONG string of "coincidences," I suppose.

The theory is that a deal was made between Trafficante and Fidel (by his agent): Trafficante would help supply intelligence information to Castro in exchange for which Castro would allow Trafficante to flow drugs into the US through Cuba. Presumably, the drugs became a bigger source of profits than the casinos had been. I believe that, despite my questionable level of intelligence, I found the words "theory" and "presumably" in your statement which lays the foundation for a Castro-Trafficante alliance. Perhaps my intelligence is as you suspect, because the words "theory" and "presumably" imply that this alliance is...what was that word you so detest?...SPECULATION. but no more speculation, please! Yeah...that's the quote. Many people credit this Trafficante-Castro connection, including an investigative reporter from DC named George Crile III. "Many people..." OK, Tim; at this point I've got you and Crile. Even with my questionable level of intelligence, I detect a bit of difference between "many" and "two." Nor did he, in my opinion, fear either Giancana or Rosselli. Could that yet be another case of SPECULATION? It appears to be so...but, y'know, the questionable level of intelligence on my part may just make that MY perception alone and not a perception shared by others. And about Castro: Obviously he would not mind poisoning American society with drugs. Did Castro ever state this, or is this more SPECULATION on your part? The US had been firing bullets (figuratively speaking) at Castro for years. As I said before, the real question is not whether he fired back but rather what took him so long. So...if "...the real question is not whether he fired back...", then you're obviously stating that THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT CASTRO "FIRED BACK." I just see theory, presumption, and SPECULATION here...not saying it COULDN'T have happened this way, but I don't think you'd get a conviction using the standard criteria ["beyond a reasonable doubt"]. Quite ironic, as it seems you consider anyone who doubts your scenario to be UNreasonable. So convince me, Counselor...make your case, minus the SPECULATION you claim so much to detest.

Mark, you had a very good post on the "Fidel Did It" scenario thread. Hmmm...and a few days ago you were questioning my intelligence, were you not? For reasons such as this, I figure the above quote must be either sarcastic or facetious in nature, or it's another case in which Tim compliments [yes, that's the correct spelling and usage] the post, and then questions the sanity of the poster. And frankly, I'm sick of that method of argument.

what angered him was the CIA's employment in the plot of the very Mafia preincipals he was trying to prosecute. Tim, I believe the correct word is "principals."

I've read, over and over through many various threads on many various aspects of the JFK assassination, Tim's theory that Castro was behind the Kennedy assassination. One thing that keeps coming to mind is the illogic that Santo Trafficante Jr. was the one who kept tipping Castro off that the CIA had yet another scheme to "whack" him. Trafficante was first imprisoned by Castro, then "deported" to the US. As we all know, Trafficante was the Miami mob boss, and the mob lost a considerable chunk of income and real estate when Castro came in and shut down their operations. So what was Trafficante's motivation to "buddy up" with Fidel? It was obvious then, as it is today, that Fidel Castro wasn't about to "betray" the "revolution" by EVER handing the casinos back to the Mob...couldn't happen, wouldn't happen, didn't happen. So when the CIA came up with their plans to kill Fidel, it would, logically, be in the best interest of the Mob--and, by extension, Trafficante--to cooperate, in the hopes of getting another Baptista or similarly corrupt presidente who would allow their operations to flourish. Or, to state the obvious, it would be AGAINST Trafficante's own best interests to betray the murder plots. Or, another way to say it: Trafficante KNEW what the Mob was capable of...so is it logical to conclude that he would betray the interests of the mob [i.e., the removal of Castro and the restoration of the Mob's casinos]? For Tim's scenario to be plausible, Trafficante would've had to have greater fear of Fidel than he had of Giancana et al, if word of Trafficante's double-crossing of the CIA murder plots was to be discovered. I just don't find it plausible that Trafficante was more scared of--or thought he would get a better deal from--Fidel Castro than "the boys." That just doesn't compute, Counselor.

Interesting...it's apparently not Tim's fault that he's playing self-appointed language cop: The fault, of course, is with the English language using two words with the same pronunciation but different spellings for two different meanings. Why are there are not different words for each meaning to avoid this confusion? Whether Tim realizes it or not, most of us here know the difference between "your" and "you're", and between "principal" and "principle." I tend to believe that Tim's "principal" reason to point these things out isn't the "principle," but it's Tim's desire to (1) position himself as being above the person who posted; (2) discover yet another avenue to find fault with a post; (3) distract the discussion from the point being made by the person posting and make himself the center of attention, rather than the topic under discussion. And THAT is, in itself, yet another "communication breakdown." [And Tim: in case you weren't aware, it IS still considered impolite to inquire whether one has the means to purchase something--unless you are implying that you will purchase it FOR them--as this is an invasion of one's right to privacy in their own financial matters. I would've thought that I shouldn't have to remind you of this, as I'm sure you had a proper upbringing available to you, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I doubt that you'd intentionally be this inconsiderate.]

Tim, I am shocked--shocked!!--that you would, even in jest, impugn the characters of not one but TWO loyal, patriotic Americans such as Captain Kangaroo [obviously a graduate of the same school of psuedomilitary titles as one famous but enigmatic Colonel Parker, manager of the late Mr. Presley] and Mr. Greenjeans. The difference is, Nixon had associates such as Mitchell, Stans, Dean, Hunt, Liddy, Colson, Haldeman, Erlichmann, and Magruder...men who would break the law for their Commander-In-Chief, some of whom would NOT draw the line at murder. Pardon me this one generality, but a man does not gather this type of associates in an instant; they are accumulated over a period of years. Unless there is a coverup regarding the backgrounds of Bunny Rabbit or Mr. Moose, Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Greenjeans had no such unsavory associates. In another thread, you revealed that you worked in Nixon's 1960 campaign. Could it be you're simply too close to the trees to accept that there might be a forest out there somewhere? Or did Tricky Dick TELL you he wasn't involved [and from the Watertgate tapes, we KNOW Mr. Nixon would never, EVER, tell a lie]? Again, anything is possible, but absent evidence one cannot assume something happened. Tim, you're correct...but I'm not assuming it DID happen. I'm merley postulating that it MIGHT have happened. But one cannot assume something DIDN'T happen until the evidence has been examined. For some reason, you're becoming a bit shrill about even LOOKING for any evidence, either to prove or DISprove Nixon's involvement. And, as usual, you missed my point about Nixon's meeting with Pepsi-Cola in Dallas. It wasn't his BEING in Dallas that I find suspicious; rather, it's the fact that he apparently never told the same story twice about about either being in Dallas, OR about how and when he heard of the JFK shooting. But I've come to expect such a response from you; to explain away the parts that AREN'T in question, so that you can ignore the parts that ARE. Again, your personal politics are coloring your assessment of the facts, apparently.

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zip, that Nixon had prior knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy. Y'know, Tim...until the White House tapes emerged, there was no evidence that Nixon was involved in the obstruction of justice in the Watergate case, either. BUT THAT DIDN'T PRECLUDE HIS PARTICIPATION IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DID IT? Using your logic, Tim, just because Jimmy Hoffa's not been seen since 1975 is no reason to conclude that he was kidnapped or murdered, SINCE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. Maybe he just took a long vacation without telling anyone, or seeing--or being seen by--anyone on his way to his destination. As with any theories about Nixon's involvement, there are only unanswered questions. And anyone who has read any of the Warren Commission's report knows that it's not polite to pursue unanswered questions. And since you already know for absolutely certain that Nixon not only wasn't involved in, but also had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination, it would be pointless to search for answers to these questions concerning inconsistencies in his statements. I stand enlightened by your thinking, Tim. I'm a new man, free to go on to other things now that I know that any unanswered questions about Mr. Nixon don't matter, since we have your word that he absolutely, positively wasn't involved in, and had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination.

Great research on Dillon, Bernice! Somehow, though, it appears that Mr. Gratz mysteriously has no comment on any of it...amazing, to me, since he's been Dillon's staunchest defender PRIOR to this point. Perhaps Mr. Gratz could be so polite as to compare and contrast this material with Sorenson's information on Dillon...maybe he could even tell us whether this information is malodorous [as the "scent" screen was optional on MY computer, I didn't purchase it]. And going 'WAY back in this thread, Tim...you missed my point completely [intentionally, I'd presume] once again. I wasn't arguing that the JFK assassination was a "crime of passion," as that argument would be absurd. I was pointing out that your blanket statement that people don't kill their friends was an inaccurate and misleading generalization...and it STILL is. People don't kill their friends ONLY during crimes of passion; in America today, one is probably more likely to be killed by someone who is known by the victim, and MAY be assumed to be a friend, than one is likely to be killed by a stranger in a random act of violence. While friends don't routinely kill friends in MY neighborhood--and probably not in yours as well--it DOES occur, with alarming frequency, in America. Friends DO kill friends...so I submit that your argument to the contrary is based upon a fallacy, and is therefore invalid. THAT is my point. But I fail to understand your perceived need to argue with ME on the point of Dillon's participation--or lack thereof--in JFK's assassination, since we APPEAR to be in agreement on this [one] point. However, I can't just stand idly by and let your blatantly false generalizations pass; that would be intellectually dishonest as well. And Tim...before you cast stones at someone else for calling names, perhaps you should recall your own usage of such terms as "looney tunes" and "insane" in recent posts. I think we can ALL disagree without resorting to these tactics. If you'll notice, I have attacked your arguments, and upon occasion your transparent political motivations...but we need to get back on track regarding the JFK assassination, and not the character assassination of fellow researchers. As far as the "communications breakdown''--remember that one? It was the original topic of this thread--it may have been planned; it may have been coincidental. But without further information, we may never know. Anyone have a clue where further information on the subject may be found?

And I can picture President Bush holding a gun on himself, a la Cleavon Little in the movie, Blazing Saddles. "HE SAID, 'THE SHERIFF IS NEAR!'"

I don't believe that Nixon was involved in the JFK assassination to avenge a "stolen election"; rather, I believe that Nixon saw his political career, which was constantly rising until the 1960 election, hit rock-bottom when he couldn't even get elected governor of his home state--a state that was apparently proud of him being vice-president--just two short years after his loss to Kennedy. Or did someone ELSE say "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" after the '62 gobernatorial debacle, and we overlooked the ventriloquist's wizardry? You can't ignore that statement, Tim. It's the statement of a defeated man. And if his prospects looked as bleak to him as the statement indicates, it's not difficult to imagine--maybe it is for YOU, since I still haven't received that mind-reading course in the mail--that Nixon realized that his downward spiral began with the 1960 election...and, by extension, for Nixon to blame Kennedy for his fate in '62. Now, if Nixon was to have been made aware of a plot to snuff JFK, it's not a long reach to conclude that, as attuned to revenge that he was, he would have enjoyed the prospect and NOT interfered...even though, as an attorney and an "officer of the court," he had a duty to report such a conspiracy, his conduct as recorded on his own White House tapes leads me to believe that no such reporting would have been made by him. And as far as LBJ having any inkling that Nixon may have been involved...if the Nixon scenario occurred, I honestly doubt that LBJ would've been privy to any of the details. But if I were to try to concoct an alibi for myself, as a public figure such as Nixon, what better one would there be than LEAVING the city where the murder is to occur, earlier on the DAY of the murder, via air, where it's impossible to leave the plane and then return unless you're Clark Kent? You now have an airtight alibi that you were nowhere on earth--you were in the sky--when the murder occurred, so YOU couldn't POSSIBLY have done it yourself. But it's rather curious that, later, Nixon couldn't even remember being in Dallas that day...and yet nearly every American who was over the age of six can remember in great details where they were that day. Or maybe, in the words of one of his successors, Nixon was merely "disassembling" [i KNOW the correct word is "dissembling", Tim]. And if Nixon was trying to cover up his presence in Dallas on 11/22/1963--despite witnesses who placed him there--one must ask WHY. To date, I've not heard an explanation that has the ring of truth.

OK...we'll try again...

Greg, here's an attempt at posting the pic on p. 71:

OK, Tim; so when you said that assumptions that the assassinations may be connected were wrong, you merely meant to say they MAY be wrong. Pardon me for taking you at your word, and not being clairvoyant enough to see into your mind. [My "Madame Zelda's Mind-Reading Course" hasn't come in the mail yet.] I don't think that any Nixon involvement in the JFK assassination would have been predicated upon the '64 or '68 elections; my theory is that, if he was involved, his motive in 1963 would've been strictly based upon revenge, with perhaps a bit of "for the good of the country" thrown in, if Bernice's post on Hoover providing info from his Kennedy dossier to Nixon--from the "Communications Breakdown" thread--is correct. So any Nixon element to the JFK assassination would be based upon "correcting" past events, and not in anticipation of future elections. In '63, Nixon was still smarting from '62's California gubernatorial debacle, and his subsequent "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" comments. Nixon had a brooding nature--as is demonstrated in conversations on the White House tapes--and was a creature who relished revenge--as is ALSO demonstrated on the White House tapes. So to say that a revenge killing--one done by others, mind you, but one of which Nixon may have had foreknowledge--is beneath Nixon is to deny Nixon's very nature. Since Nixon's career was at its lowest point since his '48 election to Congress in 1963, to assume that he had ANY designs on the White House in '64 or '68 as of 1963 is stretching the envelope a bit. So therefore, whether LBJ was in the White House in '64 or not didn't matter one whit to Nixon in 1963...but taking revenge on the man who had, effectively, ruined his political life, appears to have some possible appeal to Nixon. More on this topic--the JFK/MLKjr/RFK/Wallace shootings and their possible connection, and not SIMPLY Nixon and the JFK assassination--later. Tim, I still see your arguments against any connection as being colored more by personal politics than anything else. I, On the other hand, see BOTH the Republican and Democrat parties as nothing more than two respective pits of vipers out to bamboozle the American public; and so I have no incentive to promote--or protect--the reputation of EITHER. Hope this doesn't reflect adversely on my intelligence, this ability to think beyond what either party tells me to think.

Great post--as usual--Bernice!

I guess it just comes down to good old common sense and everyday experience: a person does not kill his friend. Tim, you apparently aren't aware that this particular crime happens every day in America. Ever hear the phrase "crime of passion"?? Friends kill friends EVERY DAY in America; if you aren't aware of that fact, you lead an extremely sheltered life, and I suggest you pick up a newspaper from ANY major metropolitan area and read the daily crime reports to confirm the veracity of my statement. As far as the CONTEXT of your statement--which statement was a BLAZING generality with no basis in fact--like you, I also have difficulty in accepting that Dillon had any ACTIVE part in the JFK assassination...including the ACTION of ordering, or suggesting, that the Secret Service stand back and allow it to occur. Dillon, as I have stated several times before, was a bureaucrat...a "company man," if you will...his upper-management task was to make the whole of the Treasury Department look good, and NOT to meddle in the day-to-day mundane work of SS, BATF, or any other division. In case you haven't grasped my point: DILLON THOUGHT IT WAS BENEATH HIS STATION AS TREASURY SECRETARY TO DEAL WITH THE DAILY GRIND. He was, for lack of a better term, what we would today call an "elitist." So I just don't find allegations of his active participation in the assassination to be plausible. And therefore, I DON'T believe he participated in killing his friend, JFK. But I won't be so naive as to make a blanket statement that such things NEVER happen. [They just never happen in "polite society"...right, Tim? Wrong again; if you read the newspapers, you already know better.] My point? Tim, I wish you'd be more careful [i.e., ACCURATE] when speaking/writing in generalities. Your carelessness only affects your credibility, after all.

It seems logical to connect the assassinations of the sixties but the logic MAY be superficially appealing but nonetheless wrong. Tim, it appears that you've been holding out on us...what EVIDENCE do you have that these assassination are NOT connected? Or is it as I suspect...that you have no evidence, but only a strong belief that, to connect these assassinations [JFK, RFK, MLKjr, and the attempt on George Wallace] would be ann attempt to stain the robes of "Saint Milhaus the Pure"? After all, his resignation wasn't REALLY affected by the articles of impeachment, based upon his total and absolute respect for the sanctity of the laws, either...he just thought it'd be a nice additon to his resume', I suppose, and it gave that nice boy, Gerry Ford, a hand up when he needed it. Take the blinders off, Tim. Republicans are just as capable of committing illegal acts--including murders--as Democrats, Masons, Episcopalians, soccer fans, and drug addicts with anger-management issues...or any other segment of society. Maybe Nixon was involved...maybe he wasn't...but to use your devotion to "Tricky Dick" to assert that there was NO connection among the assassinations of the '63-'72 era is a bigger leap of faith than LOOKING for evidence that Nixon MIGHT have been involved. That's analagous to the Warren Commission assuming that there was NO conspiracy in JFK's assassination, and THEN taking testimony and looking at evidence...and we ALL know that's the wrong way to investigate ANYTHING.

"...blaspheming patriotic Americans." I believe that "blasphemy" is a charge relating to religion. So is Tim now claiming diety for Dillon? If so, is Tim's claim for Dillon any higher or lower on the diety "ladder" than he apparently claims for any OTHER Republican? Tim, I suggest YOUR research should include a stop at Funk & Wagnall's...or is Webster the purveyor of Republican dictionaries? [i can NEVER get that one straight...] "...people who have not read the entire history of the period... Tim, the "entire history of the period" has yet to be written. As long as there are pertinent documents under seal, whether for "national security" reasons or for other purposes, the "entire history of the period" is only known to a select few who HAVE seen--or authored--these documents. I seriously doubt whether "the entire history of the period" will be revealed within our lifetimes, if history is our guide. Why, there are more hours of UNRELEASED Nixon tapes than there are hours that HAVE been approved for public consumption. Are we 100% positive that NOTHING of historical value is on them? Of course not. But are some being withheld on "national security" grounds? Of course. So the "entire history" of THAT era is unavailable to the general public...as is a great deal of the "entire history" of the JFK era. I sincerely doubt, on THAT basis alone, that YOU have read "the entire history of the period," either...since a lot of it is still unreleased. And as hijackings go, you just can't turn this one loose, can you? Ron Ecker raised a valid question about the nature of the disruption of the phone service in Washington DC on 11/22/63...I've tried to turn the attention back toward that discussion of the "communication breakdowns" on 11/22/1963, rather than focusing on the "communication breakdown" [of the Strother Martin/"Cool Hand Luke" variety] going on within this thread...to no avail. So again I ask...does anyone have any insight into the duration and severity of the Washington DC telephone system problems on 11/22/1963? I believe I've read an explanation that it was merely a system overload, trying to handle more calls than the system was designed for; but I don't have that reference readily at hand. Or does anyone have any insight as to whether that explanation was a smokescreen for something more sinister going on, the "overload" explanation used to possibly prevent public panic? Ron, I'm trying to keep your question from being buried...but it's taking a Herculean effort, and I'm beginning to wonder why that's necessary.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth." ---- Sherlock Holmes, "A Study In Scarlet," (1887) by A.C. DOYLE And by the way, you have absolutely butchered the Holmes quote. "Once you have eliminated the impossible"--what sense does that make? Well, I guess if you can suggest Nixon complicity a suggestion that you use common sense may be of little value. Paraphrasing the Holmes quote, it was to the effect that once you have eliminated all other POSSIBILITIES (not "impossibilities") whatever remains, regardless of how improbable, must be the truth. Now, Mr. Gratz...by the evidence above, exactly WHO has "absolutely butchered the Holmes quote"??? I daresay, not I. It is YOU who has twisted the quote and its meaning. I don't believe the dependent clause, "When you have eliminated the impossible," was misconstrued in any way in my posts. While I may not have your impressive academic credentials, I don't apologize [need I apologize?] for my ability to comprehend and retain what I have read. And I actually have my doubts as to the sincerety of your apology, based upon the inaccuracies of your attack that followed. You based your entire argument upon a flawed understanding of the Holmes [Doyle] quote. Would you like to do some further research and get back to me?

Tim, I resent the fact that you make it sound as if YOU convinced me that Dillon wasn't involved in the JFK assassination. I have held that position from the start. Dillon was a bureaucrat, a manager of his department; I have serious doubts that he ever thought twice about the Secret Service protection of the president prior to 11/22/1963. Dillon was they type of manager to delegate such [prior to 11/22/1963] mundane tasks to underlings. I differ with Shanet's idea that Dillon actively stepped aside from presidential protection, as I believe that this aspect of Treasury was the furthest thing from his mind ON A DAILY BASIS. I'm not agreeing with you that the idea of Dillon's participation would be insane, either; given the uneventful nature of presidential protection prior to 11/22/1963, I just believe he never gave the subject a second thought...that was the province of the "underlings" at Treasury, not Dillon. I'm NOT one of your Limbaugh-regurgitating buddies; I DON'T believe that you're either with us or against us, as "El Rushbo" spouts, parroting the White House line. I think there is room for the entire spectrum of thought here, and that ALL areas that aren't an impossibility should be explored...rather than dismissed as "insane." Perhaps I don't have your esteemed credentials, but I tend to believe the majority here are a bit more open minded than the Warren Commission. I've seen some quality work from Jim Root, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Antti, and so many others here. But it appears that YOUR primary purpose is to lead the "Castro-did-it" cheering section, and to obstruct, sidetrack, and confuse any other line of investigation. Ever hear the advice, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way"? [i'm sure you're well-read to a sufficient degree to have come across it at least once.] I came here to ask questions, to pose some "what-ifs," and to draw upon the knowledge and the research of others here to broaden my own knowledge. But I feel like I'm being told to PROVE that Nixon did it, while we can't even decide what Oswald's role in the assassination was or wasn't. I can't PROVE Nixon did it any more than I can PROVE that Castro did it. As I've previously said, if we could PROVE who did it, we could publish our results and all go home relieved. And why are you "glad that recognize that it makes no sense to blame Dillon"? Why should you CARE what I think of Dillon? Because he was a "good Republican"?? Your condescending tone toward me is making me quite irritable, as I don't believe I deserve it. GET OVER YOURSELF, TIM. My opinion is, if you ever read Dale Carnegie, it must not have made much of an impression on you...or else you brushed it off as some liberal fluff from some Commie, so it becomes inherently unbelievable...maybe even "insane"?? Tim, I don't subscribe to the "Castro-did-it" scenario because it's become the CIA's fall-back position, since the Warren Report didn't fly. I'm not saying it COULDN'T happen; I just tend to have my doubts that the CIA position should be embraced unquestioningly. If I was ever convinced that this IS what happened, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, then I would be humble enough to admit it. But so far, I don't think we've exhausted all the other RELEVANT avenues of inquiry. In fact, I believe that's why we're all here...yourself excluded, of course, because you're evidently convinced you already have the answer...but so was the Warren Commission, Tim. Communication Breakdown, indeed. Now...what about that DC phone service on 11/22/1963? I believe Ron has raised a point to investigate.

Look, I'll save you and Shanet some time: the book that clearly discusses the close friendship between JFK and C. Douglas Dillon is Sorenson's biography of JFK. As I suspect you know--nah, why should I suspect that--for your information Ted Sorenson was for years one of Kennedy's closest friends and political advisers. Why don't you for a week or two quit reading some of the garbage posted here (and some of the posts clearly are) and read Sorsenson's book? I think you might learn a lot. I am seriously considering contacting Sorenson to obtain his comment on the charge that C. Douglas Dillon was complicit in the murder of his boss. I know he would probably be even more enraged than I am! Tim, you're obviously not paying attention to what I have posted on this forum. Here's a cut-and-paste from the "Deep Throat" thread [which you ALSO have so conveniently hijacked at every opportunity]: I have also stated elsewhere on this forum that I seriously doubt that C. Douglas Dillon was involved in any assassination plot, if for no other reason than the fact that the Secret Service was, prior to 11/22/1963, little more than a minor detail in the administration of the Department of the Treasury...and, as such, wasn't an overriding concern of Dillon, to the exclusion of other matters at Treasury. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST IN ASSOCIATING MY NAME WITH ANY THEORY IMPLICATING DILLON IN JFK'S ASSASSINATION? If you're going to start a reply using my name, I would appreciate it if you'd stick with what I actually have posted, and not what you ASSUME that I think. NOW, Mr. Gratz...can you grasp YET what my position is regarding C. Douglas Dillon? Or do I need to check yet ANOTHER thread to find where you've accused me of posting things I haven't? GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD: I'M NOT ACCUSING DILLON. Can I make my point any more clearly? Or, better question: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW???

It appears that our Mr. Gratz wants to 'cherry-pick" which evidence to accept and which to discard, and yet denies the same privelege to anyone who dares to dispute his "Castro-did-it" playing card. Tim, many of us see the "Castro-did-it" card as the joker in the deck, rather than the ace that you claim it to be. I firmly believe that geography plays into your belief in the "Castro-did-it" scenario, as the idea plays well in south Florida among the Cuban exile community. For those of us in the remainder of the world, where Castro is merely another annoyance rather than Satan Incarnate, the view is different. Out here, where one seldom hears a "Castro is the reason my life is ruined" story, other ideas must be entertained. One such idea is that Nixon MAY have been involved in a conspiracyto kill JFK, among others in the 1963-1972 window. I believe it was Sherlock Holmes who said something to the effect of, once one eliminates the impossible, what remains must be the truth. Since I don't find it IMPOSSIBLE for Nixon to have been involved in one or more murders, I must consider it MIGHT have happened that way. If I thought that was THE solution to the JFK murder, I would've declared, "Game, set, match; Case SOLVED!!! Let's go home and call it a night!" But I've done no such thing, although it appears you are convinced that I have. I have also stated elsewhere on this forum that I seriously doubt that C. Douglas Dillon was involved in any assassination plot, if for no other reason than the fact that the Secret Service was, prior to 11/22/1963, little more than a minor detail in the administration of the Department of the Treasury...and, as such, wasn't an overriding concern of Dillon, to the exclusion of other matters at Treasury. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST IN ASSOCIATING MY NAME WITH ANY THEORY IMPLICATING DILLON IN JFK'S ASSASSINATION? If you're going to start a reply using my name, I would appreciate it if you'd stick with what I actually have posted, and not what you ASSUME that I think. And, turning back to the topic of this thread, I still believe that Felt's source inside the White House may have been Sullivan...allowing Felt to "know" things he wasn't in an official position to "know."