Mark Knight

Indeed, what WAS Tippitt doing in Oak Cliff at 1 pm? According to the MP3 I have of the KLIF broadcast from 11/22/63, the Dallas Police Dispatcher informed a KLIF newsman immediately after the shooting was reported that ALL available officers were ordered to report immediately to the area of Elm and Houston, "code 3" [full lights and siren operating]. Apparently, Tippitt never obeyed the order. I find that strange, to the point of incredible. Here we have the reported shooting of the President of the United States, and all available officers are ordered to report to the scene of the shooting, and Tippitt disobeys the order. When a crime of this magnitude is involved, and an officer disobeys an order to report to the scene of the crime, all sorts of warning lights and bells go off in my mind. Apparently the same reaction didn't occur within the DPD. I find that strange... am I the only one?

One of my pet theories is that Nixon was let in on the details of the BOP operation from the get-go, and that it was assumed within the CIA that Nixon would defeat Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election. When Kennedy won, while the CIA might have been mildly surprised, they continued with their plan., assuming Kennedy would be of the same mind as Nixon in regards to a communist neighbor 90 short miles away. But when Kennedy resisted the call for air support during the actual invasion, thus dooming the mission, the thinking was inevitable: "Nixon was in our corner on this one; Nixon wouldn't have left us high and dry as Kennedy did," or something to that effect. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually came out that someone at the CIA was keeping Nixon informed of the resistance they were receiving from the White House, post-BOP. And since Nixon was, effectively, "their guy" as far as the operations against Cuba were concerned, it's not totally beyond the realm of possibility that someone in the CIA saw the JFK assassination plot as a way to repay Nixon for the humiliation he suffered, both in the 1960 presidential election and the 1962 California gubernatorial election...as well as a way to bring Nixon back into power, so they'd never have to suffer under the Kennedys again. As I said, it's just a theory; but thru the prism of history, it's probably as plausible as any I've heard elsewhere...and will probably prove over time just as impossible to substantiate. As far as Nixon and the tapes, I agree that he most likely had no idea that the courts would rule against his invocation of "executive privelege" claims. And I don't believe Nixon kept them for the sake of history; as the ruthless politician he was, I cannot see any other reason for keeping the tapes except as leverage over the other participants, in order to get what Nixon wanted from them. Just my opinion, of course.

It's really hard to separate this topic from "The Invisible Government," as it's quite obvious in hindsight that JFK's was the last American presidential administration that DIDN'T have someone else pulling the strings. Right or wrong, JFK made his own decisions; those who followed him seem to be playing from different acts of the same script. Nixon, particularly, seemed to be attempting to cut the strings and travel in his own diabolical direction as if he thought he had the upper hand on his "handlers." For Nixon's attempts to free-lance, he had the rug pulled from beneath him. The tape system which was meant to blackmail others into compliance--with threats to reveal the incriminating contents--was used instead to bring Nixon down. Yet at this very late date, IIRC something less than 20% of the Nixon tapes have been released for public consumption, and there is a reluctance to expose much of what was discussed on the tapes. My guess is that Butterfield was a "spook," if not a full-fledged agent then one who knew to dance when the agency called the tune. He maintained the taping system in secret when assigned to do so, and then when ordered to let the information of its existence "slip," he willingly did so. He was a "good soldier" for his bosses, it seems. It's just that Nixon failed to realize that HE [Nixon] wasn't actually Butterfield's boss, as Nixon had always assumed he was. Ever read Liddy's autobiography, "Will"? I found it "convenient" that Liddy had resigned from the FBI just prior to the JFK assassination, went into private legal practice for a time, and then "resurfaced" in "government service" during the Nixon years...just as Nixon himself did. Sounds like a pattern; how many others may have followed it also?

At the time of the MLK assassination, I recall a photo published in the Louisville, KY courier-Journal of the alleged assassin, that stuck with me because of its LACK of resemblance to James Earl Ray, upon his eventual capture. Years later, I saw this same photograph elsewhere...it was the Mexico City "Oswald" photo, later ID's as Saul Sague/Saul Sage. My guess is that the FBI released the photo in all earnestness, and afterward they got an order from someone to "back off" from pursuing this lead. I have searched the internet in vain for this photo in the context of the MLK assassination, but I am 100% sure I am not mistaken. Anyone else around age 50 or over have a similar recollection?

Mark and Ron, you are both substantially correct. If history be our guide, what is happening now in America was played out earlier in the 20th century in Germany, as the Nazi party was voted in by people who were more concerned with the "me" factors than they were with the direction the counrty was taking. By the time the German people woke up, World War II was upon them and their only course at that point was REactive, rather than PROactive. Right now in America, we have a government in power that is bent on taking away rights from its citizens, all the while telling them how they are getting government regulation off the backs of the people. Compounding this, they are raiding the treasury while talking about how they are securing the future for the upcoming generations of Americans. If there is a plainer example of Orwellian "doublespeak," I've yet to see it. And it's not just one party; BOTH entrenched political parties are involved in their surreptitious game of speaking for the rights of the indivual while simultaneously taking them away. The Nixon administration was stopped in their tracks because of an effective press and an effective anti-establishment movement, which had been building since--approximately--the JFK assassination. Today, any potential countermovement is checkmated by government infiltration almost from inception, and the infiltration of the working press has all but neutered their corrective influences on government, subverting the vision of the Founding Fathers. And I just want to warn you that it's getting worse.

What we are seeing in the US today definitely has its roots in the JFK assassination, if not before. The trend is toward fascism, plain and simple...choices have been taken away from the citizens "for our own good" or "for our own security". Our own country is spying on its [allegedly] free citizens today at a rate which, in my estimation, probably exceeds the Nixon administration's wildest dreams. But if you call it "Homeland Security," you can disguise MANY evils as being "for the greater good of the Fatherland...errr, I mean, Homeland." Got an enemy you want silenced, to the point he isn't even allowed legal counsel? Label that man an "enemy combatant," and he can be jailed indefinitely without being charged with any crime, and he can be denied legal representation. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I think if this was happening in a 3rd-world country, the label would become "political prisoner" and groups such as Amnesty International would become involved. Of course, years ago I would have never had reason to put forth such words; now that the reasons exist, I also fear for my freedom for having said them. If it sounds reminiscent of Stalinist Russia, when a dissident might become an "enemy of the state," I believe the comparison is indeed valid. The MIC--the fascists--are in charge in America; make no mistake about that. But since they can't jail us all, the best defense is to be vigilant, and to speak out when official acts and deeds just don't add up. I'm just scared for the kind of America my children will end up with after my generation is gone.

While Harry Truman once said that Nixon was a "shifty-eyed, lying S.O.B. and everybody knows it," it is Nixon's own statements that cast doubt on what he did or didn't do on November 22, 1963. At first, Nixon had no recollection of even being in Dallas on that fateful day...then he has NOT one, NOT two, but at least THREE stories of how he learned of JFK's assassination (reporters' questions at Idlewild; heard at stoplight while in taxi; and told when he exited taxi at his building in NYC). I don't know about YOU, but I know EXACTLY where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news of JFK's shooting, and where I was and what I was doing when I heard he was dead. Specifically, I was a fourth-grade student on the playground at recess just after lunch when a classmate came running breathlessly out of the school to tell us that "Kennedy's been shot!" We all accused him of lying, but he insisted that, as he returned from the bathroom, he passed by the principal's office and saw the principal standing in front of the TV--the very same one that, a few weeks earlier, we'd been allowed to watch World Series games on in the school cafeteria--with tears streaming down his cheek. By the end of recess, the normally boisterous students were whispering among themselves as we filed back into our classroom. A short time later, the principal's voice came over the intercom with the most stunning message I'd ever heard in my life: "MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE? THE PRESIDENT IS DEAD. I REPEAT: THE PRESIDENT IS DEAD." I saw things that day I'd never seen in my life...Civil Defense vehicles parked in odd locations all over town, with men in them talking on radios, preparing for the possible invasion to follow this dastardly attack, for example. And yet, on a day like this, Nixon can't even remember where he was, much less what he was doing when he heard the news. How utterly incredible!

Heard a comment today on the radio that the Washington POST is preparing the obituary for "Deep Throat," as the person who had that nickname is in failing health and very near death. As it wasn't a news program, no sources were cited for this information. So which suspected "Deep Throat" is near death? Find out THAT information, and you have your answer.

[deleted duplicate post]

What I have here just may be the ReelRadio 8-hour special from November 22, 2003...not sure of its origin, but the description fits. As far as any remotes from Love Field, KLIF apparently didn't do any after the initial landing. All of the mention of Air Force One's departure and LBJ's swearing-in ceremony are reports being read, but they are being read in the studio. The only remotes, after the initial ones from Dealy Plaza, are from Parkland Hospital and from Dallas police headquarters. So there was no report on KLIF about a black hearse at Love Field. Interestingly, at around 1:38 pm, KLIF aired a "confirmed" report that a Secret Service agent was killed in Dealy Plaza...and repeated that report at least 4 more times over the next 3 hours...while I haven't gone beyond the 4-1/2 hour point, I haven't heard a retraction or correction to that point. I also have some WBAP broadcasts on MP3, but I haven't had a chance to check them out yet.

Just yesterday, I met up with an old friend from my days when I worked in radio. Knowing of my interest in all things pertaining to the JFK assassination, he gave me an MP3 disc containing almost 8 hours of real-time broadcast from Dallas radio station KLIF on November 22, 1963. It begins at approximately 11:30 am, as a KLIF reporter broadcasts JFK's arrival at Love Field. It sounds like your average 40-year-old tape recording--from whence it came--but for the most part it's highly listenable. The first bulletin comes at around 12:40 pm, when "I Have A Boyfriend" by The Chiffons is interrupted to report that there is a report that shots have been fire--possibly three shots--at the presidential motorcade. Four minutes later (12:44 pm), a second bulletin reports that there have been injuries, and that the wounded are being transported to Parkland Hospital. Three minutes later, another bulletin reports that all available Dallas Police Department officers have been ordered to report to the vicinity of Elm and Houston, "code 3" (at high speed, using lights and sirens), to secure the area. This raised a question in MY mind: if this was the order on DPD radio, why was Tippit found shot over in Oak Cliff a mere 20 minutes later? It was also at the time of this bulletin that a reporter aired a police dispatcher's description of a suspect, a white male, around 30 years old, with a 30-caliber rifle. Five minutes later--around 12:52 pm-- came a fourth bulletin, reporting several shots from a 30-caliber rifle were fired in the vicinity of Elm and Houston, and for the first time came a mention of the TSBD...with the information that the "would-be presidential assassin" was possibly still in the building. It makes for some compelling listening. So far, I've gotten through about 4-1/2 hours of it. I found it interesting that it was reported, after Oswald was in custody but before his name had been released to the press, that a Captain Pat Ganaway (sp.?) had told reporters that the suspect has visited Russia, his wife was a Russian, and that he was chairman of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. It was also reported that Dallas police said that, once in custody, the suspect said, "I got me a president and a cop; now if I can just get two more..." These days, that would be tantamount to tainting a potential jury pool, would it not? Also, KLIF reported around 4:15 pm that the MEXICAN government had decided to seal the border for 72 hours, to prevent the escape of the assassin(s)...now, why wouldn't the Texas or U.S. Federal authorities (FBI, Border Partol, etc) have thought about that SOONER THAN 4 HOURS AFTER THE MURDER? Interesting stuff...Anyone know why police dispatchers were reporting a 30-caliber rifle was used before ANY gun had been recovered?

I'd like to propose another scenario to for discussion. This would concern tying the JFK assassination, politically, together with the assassinations of MLK, RFK, and the shooting of George Wallace in 1972. In a political sense, who was the primary beneficiary of all these events? Richard Milhaus Nixon. JFK's election had dealt Nixon a serious blow to his political career, one that was compounded by his defeat for California governor in '62 and which led to the "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" comments. By 1963, the politically-savvy Nixon would have had to realize that with Kennedy's personal popularity, it would be at least 1968, if not 1972 or '76 if Bobby caught on with the public, before a Nixon presidency could happen. So JFK had to be eliminated for the sake of Nixon's political future. But Nixon was also savvy enough to realize that the LBJ sympathy vote, as JFK's sad-faced successor, couldn't be overcome in '64; he HAD to wait to run until '68. By 1968, with the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the traditionally-Democratic black voters were listening to Dr. King, and Dr. King didn't have many nice things to say about Republicans. For Nixon to succeed against this newly-empowered black voting bloc, King had to be silenced...and he was. Whiel Eugene McCarthy was running away with the Democtatic presidential nomination, Bobby Kennedy was beginning to position himself as a viable candidate for at least the vice-presidential slot; and an already-embittered Nixon refused to watch himself lose yet another presidential election to a ticket with a Kennedy on the ballot. Bobby Kennedy had to be stopped...and he was. A demoralized McCarthy basically closed up shop after RFK's death, and the undistinguishable LBJ veep Hubert Humphrey was instead chosen to head up an easily-defeated Democratic slate. In '72, Nixon was faced with another challenge: a 3-way race, which could possibly be decided in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, should no candidate garner a clear majority of votes. So Wallace was shot, and the choices came down to a gimp [wheelchair-bound Wallace], a wimp [McGovern], or...Nixon, who won in a landslide. In this scenario, if you can determine exactly who was the power behind Nixon, you can determine who was behind all of these murders and attempted murders. Obviously, Nixon wasn't pulling the trigger anymore than he was personally burglarizing DNC headquarters at the Watergate; but the operations were all apparently for his benefit, it would seem. And it's interesting that Nixon WAS in Dallas on November 22, 1963, although where he was at what time seemed to vary each time he told the story...and initially he denied being there at all! Your thoughts?

The other scenario I referred to above concerns what I observed of the Secret Service during and after the JFK assassination. I think it's quite possible that the JFK assassination was the result of an exercise--training or whatever else you might call it--gone bad. It appears to me that, to a degree, there might have been some sort of exercise going on, with an "attack" and a "prevent" team, and the assassination was originally conceived as a simulation. Where things got ugly was that someone outside the original exercise--be it MIC, Cubans, Mafia, whomever--got wind of what was going down, and provided their own shooters armed with LIVE ammunition. That, of course, might explain why it took the SS so long to react when the gunfire began...because they KNEW it was just an exercise with blanks, at least until they saw blood and brains all over Elm Street, and why SS agents were seen pounding on cars in agony and frustration when it was apparently too late to act. I've got exactly ZERO evidence to PROVE that theory, but that's one that has independently registered itself in my mind after looking at reams of testimony, photos, and movie footage. Of course, I've often wondered just HOW coincidental it was that Dave Powers' home movie of the motorcade stopped just after the turn from Main onto Houston, denying historians yet another view of what actually occurred after the turn onto Elm.

Now, it might be that my knowledge of the subject is quite limited; I was 9 years old when the JFK assassination occurred, and from the get-go there seemed to be something amiss about the lone-nut [LN], theory. From the time of the assassination onward, I have read everything I could get my hands on. I found it amazing that contemporaneous accounts went from "fusillade" or "hail" of gunfire to only three shots from behind, tied up neatly by the single-bullet theory [sBT], or, more accurately, the "MAGIC" bullet theory. I have in my collection of artifacts the LIFE magazines from immediately following the assination, thru the 1966 "A Matter Of Reasonable Doubt" LIFE article which first brought stills from Zapruder to the American public. I have books by Groden and Livingstone, Menninger, Epstein, Crenshaw, Bishop, and Manchester, as well as a host of others in my personal library. I have a 1964 hardcover of the summary of the Warren Commission, published by the Associated Press. And I have read and researched information on discussion forums all over the internet. The most intelligent discussions, and the best researched forums I've found are right here. Having said that, I'd like to suggest another theory which ties into ALL the others about the JFK assassination: the idea of "dynamic convergence." That is...with all the facts we know now about what was going on both within and without the Kennedy administration, the Kennedy administration was rocketing on a course toward destruction on November 22, 1963; and the only question to be answered was whether it would implode on itself over sexual matters, the fall being completed by the November 22 congressional testimony of Don Reynolds taking Johnson down with the Kennedy ship of state, or whether the Cuban/MIC/Mafia(et al) conspiracies would strike pay-dirt first. Fact of the matter is, with all the festering secrets about to come to light, it's doubtful that either JFK or LBJ would have escaped with his political skin by January, 1964. Mafia? Rosselli, Giancana, Hoffa...maybe, and then again maybe not. CIA? Quite possible, but still at this late date 40 years later "plausibly deniable." MIC? Big Oil? Maybe, but not without some help from one or more of the other elements just mentioned. I have two possible scenarios to propose for discussion. The first would concern tying the JFK assassination, politically, together with MLK, RFK, and the shooting of George Wallace in 1972. In a political sense, who was the primary beneficiary of all these events? Richard Milhaus Nixon. JFK's election had dealt Nixon a serious blow to his political career, one that was compounded by his defeat for California governor in '62 and which led to the "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" comments. By 1963, the politically-savvy Nixon would have had to realize that with Kennedy's personal popularity, it would be at least 1968, if not 1972 or '76 if Bobby caught on with the public, before a Nixon presidency could happen. So JFK had to be eliminated for the sake of Nixon's political future. But Nixon was also savvy enough to realize that the LBJ sympathy vote, as JFK's sad-faced successor, couldn't be overcome in '64; he HAD to wait to run until '68. By 1968, with the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the traditionally-Democratic black voters were listening to Dr. King, and Dr. King didn't have many nice things to say about Republicans. For Nixon to succeed against this newly-empowered black voting bloc, King had to be silenced...and he was. Whiel Eugene McCarthy was running away with the Democtatic presidential nomination, Bobby Kennedy was beginning to position himself as a viable candidate for at least the vice-presidential slot; and an already-embittered Nixon refused to watch himself lose yet another presidential election to a ticket with a Kennedy on the ballot. Bobby Kennedy had to be stopped...and he was. A demoralized McCarthy basically closed up shop after RFK's death, and the undistinguishable LBJ veep Hubert Humphrey was instead chosen to head up an easily-defeated Democratic slate. In '72, Nixon was faced with another challenge: a 3-way race, which could possibly be decided in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, should no candidate garner a clear majority of votes. So Wallace was shot, and the choices came down to a gimp [wheelchair-bound Wallace], a wimp [McGovern], or...Nixon, who won in a landslide. In this scenario, if you can determine exactly who was the power behind Nixon, you can determine who was behind all of these murders and attempted murders. In my next post, I'll discuss the second scenario.

I am a 54-year-old man formerly employed in the manufacturing and auto parts industries. I have an associates degree in automotive management, and I am currently a part-time substitute teacher in a local high school. I have some college credits in journalism and broadcasting from 30 years ago, but no degree in the field. I have an ongoing interest in the investigation of the JFK assassination, and I've found your forums contain the most intelligent discussions and the most logical investigative techniques I've seen on the topic anywhere on the internet. While I may never have any substantive evidence to add, I'm hoping that from time to time I might come up with some intelligent questions that would add to the discussion and possibly shed some light in areas that may heretofore have been overlooked.