Lynne Foster

McAdams may lurk here, but [like Gary Mack] he never posts here.

McAdams evidently prefers to let his "apostles" post his thoughts, if history is any indicator.

Interesting. The man who dominates the Internet regarding the Kennedy Assassinaton does not post here.

I guess if he lurks and talks with his apostles, his ability to influence is nonetheless significant.

No doubt, he thinks over the years, he has done enough work to "debunk" this interesting thread, that he or they can ignore it.

Sometimes, I wonder whether he himself believes all the "debunking" or is it just an intellectual exercise?

I am not very intelligent when it comes to expressing myself, but I am a good researcher/analyst, and people like McAdams just love to exploit any weakness to promote some agenda that is rather mysterious, unless we clearly understand their motivation.

John, as I have tried to explain on numerous occasions, I do not think my view of the assassination is influenced by my politics.

From a strictly partisan standpoint, would it not be better to try to pin the assassination on a Democrat (e.g. LBJ) than on Castro? What partisan advantage is there in asserting that Castro killed Kennedy? It is not even an anti-Communist perspective since it is my belief that if Castro "did it" he did so in "self-defense" to protect himself from continuing US efforts to kill him (which I condemn). To assert that Castro did it is really against the interests of my country because it emphasizes our illegal (in my opinion) efforts to kill Castro.

Are you a patriot? When it comes to understanding the Kennedy assassination, I think there are 3 political parties: Democrats, Republicans and Patriots.

I don't think you can blame the Democrats or the Rebublicans, in this particular case.

The Patriots? --maybe.

Why was JFK assassinated? Money. I think it's as simple as that. Lots and lots of money. They were making it, had (a) plan(s) to make more, and weren't about to let go for a no-nothing playboy like John Kennedy.

That plan remains in place today. Bankers and the military. What a racket.

I don't know what to say about this. Does that mean you keep your money under your mattress?

Incredible animation.

I have always been impressed by the absolute zeal to create the impression that it was not Oswald.

In fact, somebody like John McAdams never fails to "debunk" the truth about the Kennedy Assassination.

I am surprised they haven't found this thread yet, what is taking them?

I don't know Mr. parsons, I think actions speak louder than words. On the one hand, Garrison refused to prosecute mobsters and on the other, he wanted to prosecute Kennedy's assassins?

That does not add up ....

Lynne wrote:

I believe the purpose of the Tippet murder was a very pivitol point in catching Oswald.

I always had the impression, that the murder of Tippit played a bigger role than just being a victim of Oswald. “Oswald killed Tippit in an act of self-defence to avoid being captured” this is the version we should believe and many do. No other motive than coincidence, just because they crossed each others way? The killing itself, 4 shots and one of them almost at point blank in Tippit’s temple, speaks another language. It looks more like someone had to be silenced at all costs. IMO the Tippit killing was essential for the entire case, essential to build a case around LHO. Without it, the evidences against Oswald would have been very poor.

George

_____________________________________________________________________

I can't disagree more. Oswald's picture was plastered in the newspaper on November 23, 1963, and if Tppit was even mentioned, he was a footnote.

The claim that a Communist shot Kennedy was the big story.

And don't forget, Nixon called Hoover pretending that he wanted to learn about the assassination and Hoover told him that a Communist had killed Kennedy.

I think Tippit got in the way of the plot to implicate the "Communist".

Did you ever dig up that book Tim? It's been a long time since I've read anything on the subject by my impression has always been that the evidence indicating that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam was inconclusive.

Len, the evidence is rather conclusive, with regards to the fact that Kennedy was isolated from the rest of his cabinet, when it came to his commitment to withdrawl from Vietnam. That's what his schedule of withdrawal was all about, Kennedy knew that he could not accomplish his goal without a landslide in 1964, and that's what he was working towards.

Now, since he was assassinated, his critics have been free to obscure his record because he had to maintain a public, unity front for political reasons, but his intentions are very clear.

I am convinced that the only reason that his firm decision to pull out is "inconclusive" as you put it, is because his critics have deliberately distorted the record.

Mr. Parsons, have you read the Life articles about Jim Garrison's organized crime connections.

I do not agree with anything that Purvis says outside of his lack of respect for Jim Garrison, but do you think that Life magazine got it wrong too?

Yes, Life magazine/Luce press got it dead wrong about Garrison just like the rest of the major media.

I don't have time to dig up ancient Life magazine articles, but the main charge, as I understand it, is that the mob picked up Garrison's tab while at the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas. Davy debunks this one: "Garrison provided evidence to the Life reporters that the 'hospitality' he recieved was nothing more than the standard loss-leader feature extended to most important personages who visited not only the Sands but most other hotels in Vegas. Garrison provided a copy of his Sands bill to the reporters and pointed out that there was a rather hefty valet and telephone bill that the hotel did not cover. As Garrison noted, 'Apparently I am not very highly regarded by the Mafia if they won't even pick up my phone bill.' Nevertheless Life went ahead with these charges." It should be noted that one of the people involved with this article was David Chandler, a personal friend of Clay Shaw's (Davy 153-4). I have already posted additional information showing that Jim Garrison was not a friend of Marcello or the mob. If you have any more charges of Mob/Garrison connections send them my way and I'll debunk them.

This is pretty convincing:

From 1965 through 1969, Garrison obtained just two convictions and five guilty pleas in police cases brought against Marcello's gangsters. He elected not to prosecute 84 such cases, including 22 gambling charges, one for attempted murder, three for kidnapping and one for manslaughter. Garrison even managed to hush up the fact that last June a Marcello bagman, Vic Carona, died after suffering a heart attack during a political meeting held in Garrison's own home.

It reminds me of David Ferrie's death.

If the Life allegations were not true, why didn't Jim Garrison sue the reporters?

According to Josiah Thompson:

"When Fetzer cannot win an argument on the merits, he attacks the motives and character of those who disagree with him."

That raises an interesting question. Is it his intention to write a silly book about the murder of Paul Wellstone, to discredit the possibility that Paul Wellstone was murdered?

Just a speculation. Is that possible?

Is Fetzer playing "reverse psychology" with Josiah Thompson.

Wasn't it Intel's CIO who said, "If you are not paranoid, you won't survive."

Mr. Parsons, have you read the Life articles about Jim Garrison's organized crime connections.

I do not agree with anything that Purvis says outside of his lack of respect for Jim Garrison, but do you think that Life magazine got it wrong too?

I believe the purpose of the Tippet murder was a very pivitol point in catching Oswald.

(1) The original plan was to kill Oswald at 10th and Patten. Jack Ruby, so boldly killing Oswald in front of millions of people demonstrated that those in the "know" did not want Oswald in police custody that Friday afternoon. That plan did not work out.

(2) Tippet might have or might not have known everything but he was at Tenth and Patton at a time when Oswald could have been walking by. How neatly the case would have ended if a heroic policeman would have killed Oswald there. I believe Oswald never showed, and another man or two killed Tippet. Tippet probably never knew about such a backup plan in case Oswald did not show. Witnesses describe men other than Oswald standing near Tippet immediately after he was shot. I believe another man was used here to be seen running away from the Tippet murder site towards where Oswald was eventually caught.

I write this about the Tippet murder because if the event never happened at all, how would the police explain being in that part of the city that day, so far from the TSBD? If Oswald would not die at Tenth and Patton, at least the police could explain their motive for being in that area with Tippet being murdered in the street. Since Tippet was not going to be the hero, his death could fuel a greater public outrage against Lee Oswald. Who was it that said, "I knew we had the man who shot the President because he just shot Officer Tippet".

_____________________________________________________________________

The person who wrote the above letter published on the Internet has made some very interesting points which in my opinion, clearly reflect Mafia complicity in the Kennedy Assassination cover up.

Interestingly, I have heard that the murder of Tippit had convinced Jackie Kennedy that Oswald had acted alone. Jackie was an intelligent lady, but even intelligent people are constantly duped.

Ron

It was approved by Congress (August/September 1963).

After the assassination the Geneva talks resumed leading to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 (signed by 61 countries).

If you recall, McCloy became a central figure in these talks again. McCloy missed at least one meeting of the Warren Commissioners to attend these talks in Geneva. If I am correct it was at that same Geneva meeting that Yuri Nosenko "defected" to the US.

Coincidence?

Jim Root

Jim your research on the nuclear Test ban Treaty is very interesting and I think it is vital to a genuine appreciation about the dynamics of the Kennedy Administration. Have you noted that Kennedy relied upon Robert McNamara to ram the Treaty down the throats of his many detractors.

When it came to Vietnam however, Robert McNamara was Johnson's man [even when Johnson was VP] and Kennedy was isolated. That is why I constantly claim that Vietnam was the vital issue that left Kennedy alone and vulnerable.

If Kennedy didn't have McNamara on board, I don't think he would have gotten anywhere with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Do you agree with that?

That may be true, the underlying motive may be multivariate, but that's like saying he murdered his wife because he hated her as well as because he wanted to collect the insurance money.

I don't think it really matters.

The reason that Vietnam stands out is the old saying, "it's not the crime, it's the cover up."

The only thing that matters is:

A/ He was murdered because they wanted to prosecute the Vietnam war.

B/ His murder had nothing to do with the Vietnam war.

Take your pick.

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY -- CASE CLOSED. IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

...and like Posner, merely saying it -- even 10,000 times -- does not make it so.... Now, that said, I agree that LBJ's marked reversal of policy is interesting.

There are many people who believe they know the precise number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.... How would one go about refuting such false certainty?

Tim

I would say that if it doesn't impact anybody in a negative manner, they are free to believe anything they like.

Now don't you find it interesting that an entire rebuttal thread is devoted to refuting the claim that Kennedy was murdered because he planned to withdraw from the Vietnam war. Every motive is equally valid? How absurd.

Whyis it so difficult to understand the fact that Kennedy was essentially the first "combat troop" victim of the Vietnam war?

Had he lived, his planned schedule of total withdrawal by 1965, would have saved about 35,000 combat troops.

I am not dancing on a pin here, I merely believe that John Kennedy meant what he said, while he was alive.

Lyndon Johnson on the other hand, promised "continuity" while reversing Kennedy's plans.

This isn't exactly rocket science -nor does it have anything to do with counting angels, unless you are talking about all the people who have been murdered to cover up the truth.

Promising continuity and doing the exact opposite is much, much more than a mere difference of opinion.

You have heard about the Gulf Tonkin crisis, have you not?

If David Ferrie worked for the Federal Reserve Chairman, I'll change my mind.

I think it's absolutely preposterous, silly was too mild a term -I was trying to be kind.

Hey, why didn't they just threaten the Federal Reserve Chairman or kidnap his family, or ...

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY --CASE CLOSED.

IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

I repeat myself. There would be no war without a Federal Reserve, with the ability to create money out of nothing, who would then loan the money to us to fund that war.

You do not have to change your mind. Your approach, maybe...

I do like the thread you started though.

Chuck Robbins

Sorry, I just don't understand the relevance here. I suppose we can also say there would be no democracy without a Federal Reserve.

I just think you are making a big deal about nothing. You know, money may appear to be the answer to everything but it is not. To understand the assassination of John F. Kennedy you have to understand the PASSION behind the obsession to murder him, and that spells V-I-E-T-N-A-M.

I have to repeat -CASE CLOSED -you may not like my approach and I apologize for that, but nobody has said anything to effectively challenge my point of view here --and consider the possibility that I may be right.

If David Ferrie worked for the Federal Reserve Chairman, I'll change my mind.

I think it's absolutely preposterous, silly was too mild a term -I was trying to be kind.

Hey, why didn't they just threaten the Federal Reserve Chairman or kidnap his family, or ...

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY --CASE CLOSED.

IF POSNER CAN SAY IT, SO CAN I.

Lynne, your Post #1 would be clearer if you posted your "reason" for the assassination in the article rather than simply in the title to the thread--although your intent is clear.

Historian Stanley Karnow, who wrote an important book about US involvement in Vietnam, is one of many who dispute the claim that it was Kennedy's intention to pull out of Vietnam. I will dig up what he wrote about this later.

Even if Kennedy had intended to pull out of Vietnam, therefore providing a motive for those who would oppose such an action to want to assassinate him, motive by itself is insufficient to prove that it was that group who killed him.

There were many groups who arguably had a motive to kill Kennedy, including the Mafia, and both pro-and anti-Castro Cubans.

It is certainly not wrong to consider motive as a stepping-stone to resolving the issue of who orchestrated the assassination. I presume police often start off a murder investigation by considering persons who had a motive to kill the victim. But proof of motive is insufficient to convict anyone.

True, many groups had motive, but only one group had the power to cover it up through the Warren Report.

Let's get serious here, why do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the cover of the newspapers on November 23nd 1963, and Rchard Nixon claims that he called J. Edgar Hoover, to learn that a Communist had murdered Kennedy? Do you actually think that Richard Nixon was curious?

We're not talking about ANY group here, we are talking about the one that ordered the murder of the President of the United States and used a patsy and all these "groups" to divert attention away from the truth.

You can think that "ANY" group is responsible if you want, but that is not true.

I don't impart pearls of wisdom.

Is there some point to your post -if you can summarize it in one or two sentences please.

Are you responding to my post or should you be starting your own thread?

You claim you have been a JFK assassination research student since 1964, if you haven't figured it out by now, give it up.

I think that even Oliver Stone, who claimed that a fraud artist like Jim Garrison was a hero, could not avoid the conclusion about "why" Kennedy was murdered.

I really do not see a reasonable rebuttal about the obsession to murder JFK -it was astoundingly clear. For a modern day equivalent, you should perhaps read the thread about Senator Paul Wellstone's probable murder.

P.S. The claim that Kennedy was murdered because he threatened to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power, is plainly silly, and was originally floated to distract attention away from the real truth that you will find in the following link.

http://www.geocities.com/matwilson_2000/ch7.htm

There is no rebuttal for a man without integrity.

Nothing on this website has been effectively refuted, although the zeal to defend the man who effectively covered up the truth is indeed interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/zzzpeace/garrison.htm

Also, the claim that Garrison discredited the warren Commission is silly. The only thing that Garrison ever discredited is the truth -that's why David Ferrie dropped dead while in his custody:

I think the little high school student ought to go back to school.

I think any answer to this sort of question has to be speculative and my speculations are no better than yours. I was working fairly closely with Steve Rivele for several years on what became the Marseille mafia story. He could not confirm the location of the alleged shooters on November 22nd and the whole theory crashed and burned with the French government's announcement that one was in jail and the other on a French warship on November 22nd. So I guess we can believe whatever we want to believe. It's all speculative.

That's fascinating. But the French connection keeps coming up in many sources including the following, and I wonder whether you can find ANYTHING to poke a hole into the following theory:

http://www.geocities.com/matwilson_2000/ch9.htm

Now I do have a question about the person on the warship, is that conclusive or was it his alibi?

What kind of evidence were you able to find, to "prove" that he was on a warship? Official records

that relate to November 22nd 1963 are less than reliable, but you may be correct, perhaps he was on a warship.

Perhaps, the possibility that it was some other Fenchman and the ones we suspect are Oswald-like patsies, is also worth considering. The details do not change my over-all sense of what happened.

Karl Rove is a master strategist who sets a goal and implements it by any means, there is no history of accountability in his life.

Why expect any different this time around?

http://surftofind.com/halberstam

Karl Rove is worst than Joe McCarthy and he has the ear of the most powerful person in the world.

Does that answer your question?

I agree with you John, this is much more serious than Watergate. But so was Contragate.

The fact is, the only reason these scandals are not blowing up the way Watergate did is because there is this perception that "it is not good for the country".

So I really think that there is a good chance that there will be a plea bargain here, to keep the real truth buried because "it is not good for the country".

I don't excpect a serious meltdown in a country that tolerates questionable elections.