Mark Knight

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."

Nice to know that the English professor-in-residence is on the job. BUT...Mr. Professor...since "assassin" is a NOUN, how did ANYONE "... character assassin C. Douglas Dillon, and now Henry Cabot Lodge, ..."??? Or, in the words of one mightier than I: "Physician, heal thyself." And I sincerely doubt what's going on here is the "murder [of] the King's English", but rather the hijacking of the thread, under the guise of a "higher purpose." For you undoubtedly know by now that "the King's English" hasn't been spoken here in "the colonies" for approximately 200 years or more. So you're raising an issue that ISN'T an issue. Lodge undoubtedly WAS a principal in the Diem coup/murder/whatever you choose to call it. Whether he had prior knowledge of JFK's murder hasn't been proven; one can only speculate at this point.

Try this Brennan article: http://www.angelfire.com/me/carcano/Casey.html In my opinion, the jumbled story of a jumbled mind. Whether a victim of CIA brainwashing/drugging/whatever, I can't say. But it's a troubling story nontheless.

Mr. George, I find it wonderfully inventive of you to side with Tim that there is no evidence that anyone connected with Nixon could possible have been involved in the murder of RFK or the attempted assassination of George Wallace--thus tying Nixon to either incident--and then in the next breath assert that the unimpeachable William F. Buckley stated that, according to Hunt, one of the plumbers--the folks connected to Nixon, remember--was prepared to commit the murder of Jack Anderson "if word came down to proceed..." So which do you believe? Do believe as Tim does, that there is NO evidence tying Nixon to the crime of murder, or do you believe Buckley's report? I don't honestly believe that you can have it both ways. Either the Nixon associates--and, by extension, Nixon himself--were capable of murder, or they weren't. I choose to believe the evidence that they were. Not ALL of Nixon's associates were bunglers like Segretti, as Mr. Gratz would have us believe. I can hardly believe that such a report, that Hunt's associates, the plumbers, the White House's leak detection and prevention squad, were capable of AND WERE PLANNING a murder, is news to Mr. Gratz...I give him credit for being much more well-read than that. So for Mr. Gratz to assert that I am accusing Nixon "without any evidence whatsoever" is, as I have said previously, disingenuous of him. As for Mark Felt, I believe it's entirely probably that he was, indeed' "Deep Throat," for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

Pat, as a former journalism student, I bristled at your use of the term "poetic license" in that context. I studied journalism in the 1972-1976 era, so my education was concurrent with the Watergate incident and its fallout. As far as simplicity of the story is concerned, the professors and reporters and editors that I worked with advised us, in that era, to write on the level of the person with an average eighth-grade education. And the rule of thumb was "K-I-S-S," which is "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" But I was taught that a responsible journalist doesn't misattribute quotes, even from unnamed sources, if for no other reason than to prevent alienating the particular unnamed source and LOSING that source of information in the future...sort of a "don't bite the hand that's spoon-feeding you" mindset, if you will. And I would hope that Woodward adhered to the journalistic ethics as I was taught. Assuming Woodward was ethical, it's quite possible--as others before me have proposed--that Sullivan was feeding info from inside the White House to Felt. In that way, Felt would've still been Woodward's source, but to outside observers not aware of an arrangement between Sullivan and Felt, it would have cast doubt on Felt's identity as Woodward's source...since Felt couldn't possibly have known this insider info on his own.

Lee, I have read some of Brennan's material on another JFK assassination discussion group, and his story fades from lucid to delusional and back again without ever pausing for a much-needed reality check. It's as if he's lost somewhere in the time-space continuum with no sense of chronology, logic, or reality. If it wasn't for the CIA-induced mind games/drugs claimed, I would probably conclude that he was someone who would benefit from therapy, with or without the rubber room and the tuxedo with the sleeves that tie in the back. Has anyone ever checked Brennan's bona fides? Can anyone prove he is--or isn't--something more than a nutcase seeking his 15 minutes of fame? I'm rather cynical to begin with, but I just didn't find Mr. T. Casey Brennan to be...ah...credible. But I'm no expert on mental health, so mine is only a nonprofessional opinion.

Tim, one doesn't attempt to precipitate a military invasion/nuclear attack by "simply going to the press." If "destroy[ing] JFK publicly" WAS the only motivation, then "simply going to the press" would've been the most efficient way to destroy him AND keep one's own hands clean simultaneously. So how does this go AGAINST Shanet's theory? I think your argument here actually SUPPORTS the theory that there was a high-level coup, and that its purpose wasn't merely to destroy reputations. If the military was involved in a coup, the objective would've been to precipitate some sort of military (re)action...and I have my doubts that the slow-building Vietnam war was what these folks had in mind. And about Mr. Dillon...I read the "boilerplate" biographical info for his medal ceremony at the link you posted...nothing very insightful there...UNLESS you notice his position under Ike as Under Secretary of State--yes, the same State Department that the CIA used as cover when it planted spies abroad--in charge of the "Mutual Security Program," both the "military and nonmilitary aspects." Sounds like ex-CIA director GHW Bush honoring one of his own men to me, but I could be wrong. And I find NOTHING in this psuedo-biography that makes me think of Dillon as a saint or anything else above and beyond another Washington bureaucrat being honored by his cronies. However, as head of the Treasury Department, UNLESS he was part of the conspiracy--and I'm not convinced that he was--I really doubt that he gave a second thought to the day-to-day operations of the Secret Service until AFTER the assassination. [GOOD management people know how to delegate, and I don't doubt that Dillon was a good manager.]

Just FYI: In the mid-fifties, Felt was the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the New Orleans FBI office, working under Morton P. Chiles, the SAC who preceded Harry Maynor. This was before most of the NO cast were involved in anything significant, but I'll bet he was acquainted with or aware of former SA W. Guy Banister, who left the FBI to join the NOPD and later started a PI firm in that city. Nancy, I don't want to start a disagreement...but IIRC, wasn't Bannister an FBI SA in CHICAGO, rather than New Orleans? Not sure, but I believe I read that on this very forum...and it was only AFTER he left the FBI that he returned to New Orleans? If that's the case, then Felt's duties in New Orleans MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have brought him into contact with the Chicago-based Bannister...just my take on the situation, you understand. But Nancy...Nixon, on his own White House taping system, is heard to be involved in discussions regarding the obstruction of justice. That is NOT being "set up;" that is his own system recording his participation in the breaking of laws. If Felt or the FBI had been in charge of the taping system, and Felt or the FBI had coerced Nixon into making the statements that he made, THEN you might have a case that Nixon was "set up." But Nixon taped HIMSELF as he conspired to commit a felony...so I fail to understand how in the world he was POSSIBLY "set up." Now, if you can offer any facts, rather than just feelings, that Nixon was "set up," then I'm sure that's something the entire NATION needs to come to their attention. Or were Haldeman, Erlichman, Dean, Colson, Liddy, Mitchell, Stans, Haig, Butterfield, et al, involved in the "setup" from the beginning? Please shed some light on this.

Tim, I think I've figured out where the communications problem lies. You believe that Ron, Mark, Pat and I are saying that Nixon or LBJ was an actual assassin. That is, of course, patently false. We know that LBJ had no weapons in his possession when JFK was killed, and we know that Nixon was at that moment on a plane from Dallas to NYC. We all, I think it's safe to say, agree on these two points. Where we disagree is on whether LBJ and Nixon were INVOLVED in the assassination plots. While no "smoking gun" has been uncovered, there is also no "smoking gun" that Fidel was behind it, either. But there is circumstantial evidence in the cases of ALL three of these suspects being involved. In the final analysis, the primary disagreement is the weight that the circumstantial evidence carries. Based upon the material I've read, I'm not willing to say that LBJ or Nixon either one would draw the line at ordering--or helping plan--a murder. Both exhibited questionable moral values, and to say that either would veto a murder plot is jumping to a conclusion that, in my view, isn't sustainable by the evidence. However, I believe that BOTH Nixon and LBJ would be reluctant to pull the trigger themselves; they were, after all, executives, and effective executives DELEGATE the detail work to others. And I'm just not prepared to say that LBJ or Nixon had enough moral fiber to rule out a murder, if the stakes were sufficiently high.

Ron, I've been a bit busy, but I think you've covered things quite well. Nixon's selective amnesia during the '60's as to whether he'd even been in Dallas on November 22, 1963 started raising red flags in my mind. At least there were more witnesses to Nixon's presence in Dallas that to Escalante's. [Hmmm...both left town that day, too...and on different planes, so it wouldn't arouse suspicion. OF COURSE I'm being facetious here...aren't I?] I think Tim is following the Republican Commandment--"thou shalt speak no evil of a fellow Republican"--rather than following the evidence. Nixon was a crook, and the evidence contained on the tapes shows that he was, indeed, guilty of obstruction of justice. [And Clinton, by lying to a grand jury, was ALSO guilty of obstruction of justice...despite the fact that Clinton is a Democrat, I still know that the evidence proves his guilt. A crook is a crook, no matter what political party they belong to. May as well accept that little fact, Tim.] Ever read Liddy's book, "WILL"?? Liddy talks of how he was prepared to shoot this one or that one if necessary to keep the covert operations covert. And Colson?? The man who said he'd run over his own grandmother if the situation required it? To say these people weren't capable of murder is to ignore the evidence...including the evidence from their own mouths! I'm with Pat and Ron on this one, Tim.

Something strange is happening on this forum...the post I made yesterday isn't being registered as having been made, and therefore the topic isn't being "flagged" or "pinned" or whatever the correct term is for that sort of thing. But the question remains: Powell or Gearhart? Or were they one and the same? I tried to Google "Robert Powell" in combination with "JFK", "football", "bagman", and both with and without "CWO" and "warrant officer", and NONE of these combinations came up with anything at all. Using "Robert Powell" alone was too generic, as it brought up FAR too many Civil War veterans and genealogical entires to wade thru in a short period of time. So...anyone have more on Powell? Or Gearhart?

So...was It Warrant Officer Ira Gearhart who had custody of the football, or was it CWO Robert M. Powell, as John Ritchson mentioned on another thread yesterday? AND...if there actually IS confusion as to who had custody, WHY ? It would appear to MY feeble mind that there should be a straightforward, unequivocal answer to the question of who had possession of the football on 11/22/1963. Or was Ira Gearhart the "alias name and ID" referred to by Mr. Hemming?

Perhaps proving that the Nixon group was all talk when it came to matters as serious as murder? Tim, the others may give you a pass on that comment; I won't. In light of how Nixon's political future was connected with the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK, and the attempted assassination of George Wallace...I think it's rather reckless to say that they were "all talk when it came to...murder." Rather...I believe that the jury's still out [figuratively speaking...especially since there has been NO grand jury empaneled in Texas to investigate the JFK assassination] on that question. But if you ask, "who was the political beneficiary" in each case, an argument can be made that it was Richard Nixon over and above any other contenders. In fact, Nixon is the ONLY politician whose future got brighter with EACH of these incidents. So I think it's still premature--lo, these 35-40 years later--to imply impotence to Nixon's mob when it came to murder.

Having trouble producing a link, but I read earlier Tuesday that Felt was convicted of illegal wiretapping in the COINTELPRO program against members of the "Weather Underground"/"Weathermen" domestic terrorist organization; but before serving any jail time, Felt was pardoned in April, 1981 by then-President Ronald Reagan. Prior to his conviction, Felt was in line to possibly inherit the J. Edgar Hoover chair at the FBI. Anyone besides me think that Nixon might have "greased the skids" under Felt re: the COINTELPRO conviction, thereby ending his ascent ? Here's one link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...t_deep_throat_2

Echoing Descartes, "cogito ergo sum." But if these folks are correct...since I was allegedly born in the 20th century...then can I conclude that "I am, but I never was"??? Ah, logic... Some folks argue that the moon landing never occurred; others, that the Holocaust didn't happen. How much greater a leap, then, to insist that an entire century is a lie? If ignorance is bliss, there are some really happy folks in Kansas, apparently.

A man approaches Oswald (maybe he is a Castro agent; maybe he is a Mafioso; maybe he is a Texas oli baron concerning about his tax liability--we need not decide who the big fish is). The man knows Oswald is working for US intelligence. The man tells Oswald he is Mr Smith of the CIA. The man tells Oswald he is going to be given a most important mission. The man tells Oswald there are still nuclear missiles in Cuba and their presence may result in a calamitous war. The man tells Oswald he is to be used in a plot to force JFK to invade Cuba and get rid of Castro. The man tells Oswald his role is to smuggle a rifle into the Texas School Book Depository for a fake ATTEMPT to kill JFK, to be blamed on Oswald and justify the invasion of Cuba. The man tells Oswald he will have to flee the country but in a few years he can come back as the hero who saved the world. The man tells Oswald only a few people know the plan and he should discuss it with no one, not even whoever is now "controlling him". When Oswald hears from Truly and Baker that JFK has been KILLED he knows something is wrong. Either the plot was far more serious than told to him or it was a set-up or anything. He immediately suspects that whatever is going on he is dispendable. So he attempts to flee. Granted it is speculation but it COULD fit regardless of who was really behind the assassination. What do you think? Tim, this scenario has ONE important thing going for it: it fits the FACTS as we know them. It would be the PERFECT explanation for Oswald's behavior both BEFORE and AFTER the assassination, as well as his responses while in police custody. Tim, the plot as expressed to the participants (and to the extent that it was even communicated) was to killl JFK and frame Castro, resulting in his overthrow by the U.S.. in retaliation. The people involved in the tactical side of the plot belived this and were disappointed when Oswald's capture and the Lone Nut cover-up preempted a response against Cuba. Now whether the folks at the top of the food chain were totally upset about that or whether they had put a fix in with LBJ before hand is open to speculation. You can bet that the exiles involved were very unhappy. And I have outlined ongoing attempts over the next 60 days to try to pin the blame on Castro even in the face of the cover-up. The cover-up was completely separate from the conspiracy and was conducted in order to avoid a conflict with the Russians.....and justified based on some of the immediate evidence that suggest contact by Oswald with the Russians and Cubans as well as by many of the indications that Oswald himself had contacts with lots of suspicious people and was in no way a "lone nut". The cover-up was single handedly driven by LBJ even though certain individuals did not agree with it. Johnson's motives can be questioned but the results are pretty clear - and it was not a pretty cover-up, it was iterative and reactive and left loose ends all over the place. And in the years afterwards, many of those involved (like Admiral Burkley) even tested the waters to see if they could tell the real truth....only to quickly discern (as with Bowers earlier and Odio later) that nobody in authority really wanted to deal with it. The tactical ambush on the President was masterful, the plot to frame Oswald was pretty darn good but fell apart with Tippett's killing and Oswald's capture. The use of Ruby to eliminate Oswald was pure desparation and disclosed links the WC had to work very hard to avoid (so hard they refused to support or listen to their two field men in Dallas investigating Ruby). In conjunction with Larry's scenario above, Tim's Oswald "speculation" is a pretty good fit. And, most importantly, I've seen NOTHING that refutes this "speculation" with any great deal of credibility. The evidence in the JFK assassination has ALWAYS suggested that two--or more--factions within the US government were operating at odds with one another, in regards to the explanation of the assassination/cover story/whatever you want to call it. Not that it was necessarily FBI vs. CIA, either; the evidence suggests that there was a rift WITHIN the CIA, and WITHIN the military, as to how this was going to be played to the American people. In fact, LBJ's response, according to the LBJ tapes, changed dramatically within a few short days. At first, LBJ was adamant that, since there was no federal law broken in the killing of the President, the "Great State of Texas" should have sloe jurisdiction in any investigation...which would mean that, through his political influence in his home state, Johnson could ensure that nothing HE wanted supressed would come out. But somehow, in the span of a few days, LBJ was just as adamant that a presidential commission should look into this matter. Was it just to head off a Congressional investigation? Considering that LBJ had the sympathy of the public behind him, I believe a televised address to the nation would've convinced the public that Congress had no place looking into a murder, that this was a place for professionals to tread, and that with the FBI's complete cooperation, this matter would be solved in a relatively short time. But the apparent rift in within the government, both in how to investigate and how to construct the coverup, shows that there must have been a powerful difference of opinion separating some powerful people; else one scenario would've been squelched completely so that the other would rule the day. But the Cuba/USSR story kept being pushed, as if someone's agenda was war DESPITE the "official" line about a lone nut. And, at least in MY opinion, it took someone in a powerful position to make that happen. And, when discussing Oswald's escape plan, don't forget the DPD being dispatched to a library not far from Oswald's apartment...only to determine "it was the wrong man." In those cheap detective novels, wasn't the library another "cliche'" place to meet your "contact," if NOT meeting him in a theater?

Thanks for clearing that up, Al. I wasn't sure whether the scope in question was for a short eye-relief distance or not, but it was always something I'd wondered about.