Cliff Varnell

Agreed - Richardson was essentially a front-man/blind for the more active players until the late August attempted coup, when the CIA institutionally moved into overt opposition to a negotiated settlement.

Paul, on what basis should we conclude that John F. Kennedy was one of

the "active players"?

I'm suggesting, of course, that JFK's footprint on the Diem overthrow was light,

indeed.

How do you define "government" and "coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

The Kennedy brothers attempted to overthrow the "shadow government" created

by the National Security Act of 1947 & the formation of "Capitalism's Invisible Army."

Cliff,

Your comments regarding the T3 wound are on the money.

I have heard those who claim to be utilizing Occam "argue" that the "simplest" version of the location of the back wound that takes into account "all the evidence" is that offered by the prosector who used non-stationary anatomical positions to locate it in a position consistent with the SBT.

According to these fools, anyone who chooses to seek an alternative explanation is violating the parsimony principle.

Your Cuba construction, alas, leaves much to be desired.

QED.

CD

Charles,

I greatly appreciate our agreement on the front end.

Our disagreements on the back end (my "Cuba construction") I attribute to the elusive

nature of the aforementioned covert-op Jungle Of Mirrors.

To which, it was Clint Murchison's Cuba construction that needs investigation.

A well-executed cover story, which is designed in essence to pacify the parsimonious with its simple, initially plausible, fictive narrative supported by "evidence" made out of whole cloth, turns Occam's razor into a blunt and ineffective instrument for the dissection of intelligence operations.

Charles Drago

Occam's razor, put forth precisely as intended, is a very useful maxim for streamlining thought. Dictionary definition: "The maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity." The key wording obviously is "beyond necessity," making a detailed knowledge of the subject matter mandatory before the principle can be properly applied. Using "Occam" to avoid confronting the real-life complexity of covert operations is not only a misuse, but often a confession of intellectual sloth or cowardice. IMO.

I find Occam's Razor readily applicable to the JFK assassination on the front end, if you will,

and then again on the back end.

In between lies the jungle of mirrors known as "covert ops."

The front end: JFK's proven T3 back wound has rendered moot, "The Question of Conspiracy."

The back end: transportation tycoons and criminal syndicate chiefs found a smuggler's

paradise in Cuba, and wanted it back.

That's my 69 cents.* **

(*accounting for inflation)

(**a nod to KRS-One and his great rap song, Illegal Business (Controls America).)

After the assassination of Rafael Trujillo, the US was concerned about a possible goverrnment takeover by communists inspired by the Castro revolution in Cuba. Who suggested blowing up the U.S. consulate to create a pretext for sending American troops into the DR to prevent any possible communist take-over?

a) Lyman Lemnitzer

Curtis LeMay

c) Maxwell Taylor

None of the above.

The answer is: Robert Kennedy

Talbot's Brothers, pg 81

Tim, is there anyway I can convert these kudos to cash?

My comments will appear in this lovely shade of burgundy.

Cliff, we agree on a lot and disagree on a lot, as you know. For the record, you make a number of mistakes in your post.

1) The first photo you show does not show the BACK of Kennedy's head,

With all due respect, Pat, I didn't say it did.

This is what I wrote:

(quote on)

This alleged autopsy photo shows brain matter extruding from the back of

JFK's head.

(quote off)

In the interest of clarity, I should have written: This alleged autopsy photo of

the top of JFK's head shows brain matter extruding from the back of JFK's head.

The red line is the table top, the blue box highlights the extruding brain tissue.

Obviously, JFK's ears were above the line of the table-top, and the brain

matter extrudes from a point behind the ear.

it shows a defect in the TOP of his head, exactly as depicted in the x-rays, Zapruder film,

Jackie's actions in the limo indicate otherwise.

She instinctively reached for the area of greatest damage. Note that

her wrist is bent in this frame, while in the next frame her wrist is

straight.

She was able to straighten her wrist without pushing JFK's head

forward, consistent with her expunged WC testimony:

(quote on)

I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I

suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you

know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.

(quote off)

To deny her words and these images is untenable.

and autopsy photos.

The HSCA insisted that the burden of proof of authentification for the extant JFK

autopsy photos resides with the prosecution, e.g., Pat Speer. They singled out

the Fox 5 "back wound" photo as especially lacking in evidentiary value.

Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:

(quote on, emphasis added))

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been

described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE

TO OBTAIN ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS OF CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS

THE WOUND IN THE UPPER BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to

point out the OBVIOUS DEFICIENCES OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS

AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately

mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish

as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, HAD THE CASE

GONE TO TRIAL, might have been effectively raised by an astute defense

anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. IN ANY

EVENT, THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE

PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD HAVE RESTED WITH THE PROSECUTION.

(quote off)

If you are going to cite the autopsy photos as evidence, Pat, the burden

of authentification is on you.

In this photo Kennedy is lying on his back, with the long hair at the top of his head draped down.

And with brain matter clearly extruding from the back

of JFK's head, which is on the table, in a location consistent with Jackie's

observable actions and sworn testimony.

2) The second photo does show the largely undamaged scalp at the back of Kennedy's head. Although it's difficult to see, it also shows the bullet entrance in the scalp exactly as described by the autopsy doctors. In this photo Kennedy is lying on his left side with the hair at the top of his head pulled forward and to the left so that the back of the head can be photographed. At the top of his head, in front of his right ear, the defect visible through the hair in the first photo, can be seen.

3) Your assertion that the first photo shows the back of Kennedy's head, and that the two photos are incompatible, demonstrates one of my major points--that people have great difficulty rotating images in their head, and often transpose the top of someone's head while lying down with the back of their head when standing up.

And some people have great difficulty transposing other people's

arguments into something easier to rebut.

As noted above, my comments refer to the brain matter that is clearly extruding

from behind JFK's right ear, which must be located above the table line.

See above...

As discussed in the Wrestling Over History section of my webpage, similar difficulties with image rotation have been studied and documented by cognitive psychologists for decades.

As well demonstrated here, it's a rhetorical device known as a "Strawman."

I discussed this with a prominent psychologist and she said the problem is not so much that people remember things incorrectly as that they perceive them incorrectly from the get-go. She also told me that incorrect perceptions are contagious. This could explain why Dr. Clark thought the wound was at the back of the head, a few inches back of its identical location, and why the other doctors so readily agreed, only to change their minds when shown the autopsy photos. When one looks at bodies in the Trendelenburg position, the position Kennedy's body was in when Clark made his inspection, his mistake is easy to understand. Studies have shown that emergency room doctors are often wrong about bullet wounds, and that their perceptions are not to be trusted as to the number of wounds and the direction of fire. It appears that in this instance their perception problems extended to their perception of the exact location of the head wound as well.

4) Anyone claiming that the doctors' initial statements are to be trusted beyond all the other evidence needs to explain why eyewitnesses Newman and Zapruder went on TV and pointed out a head wound location in the exact location shown in the autopsy photos, long before the Parkland doctors wrote their early reports.

An entrance wound location -- so?

So far this has not been done. Are we really to believe that Newman and Zapruder both pointed to Kennedy's temple as the wound location, in error,

I find error in your assumption that they were referring to an

exit wound. An entrance wound in the right temple is consistent with Jackie's

actions and sworn testimony.

and that this just so happened to correspond to the x-rays and photos faked later that day?

No, this is wholly inconsistent with the Fox 5 BOH photo, which does

not show any damage from the ear back -- clearly contradicted by the extant witness

testimony and another autopsy photo.

Or should we slip on down Conspiracy Road[...]

...And acknowledge the readily established fact that JFK

was murdered as the result of a conspiracy which was covered up at the

highest levels of the US government?

Yes, I think it's about time the American people came to grips with this fact.

and make the assumption that the wounds in the photos were faked specifically to match the incorrect wound locations noted by Newman and Zapruder?

The assumptions here are all yours. It is not my burden of proof to show if

or how the BOH photo was faked -- the burden of proof is on you to establish its authenticity.

The reason I advise newbies to start their research with Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust

is to appreciate the fact that the autopsy findings were fixed to conform to the political

decision to blame one man and 3 shots for the crime.

How far will we go before we will admit that the Parkland doctors could have been mistaken, something they themselves have readily admitted? I reached the end of that line after watching Newman and Zapruder.

Which brings us to the root flaw of your argument -- you make no

distinction between witnesses to a fleeting sequence of events, and witnesses to a

stationary body for a prolonged period of time.

How on earth do you assess greater value to the statements of Dealey Plaza

witnesses than the trained doctors at Parkland, who got a prolonged view of

the occipital-parietal wound?

5) Cliff, you are also quite incorrect to state that the 14 cm measurement places the wound at the base of the neck.

I am quite correct to cite the HSCA analysis of a photo

they didn't dare authenticate -- they put it at C7/T1.

The lower margin of the base of the neck is at C7/T1.

Parts 2 and 3 of my video series show that the 14 cm measurement places the wound just where it is in the autopsy photos, and several inches below the "base of the neck" wound drawing depicted in the Warren Commission's drawings.

Thereby ignoring the fact that Humes & Co. moved the back wound 3 times.

That you continue to insist this measurement is a lie and reflects a wound at the base of the neck, when the accuracy of this measurement PROVES that the back wound drawing was a lie, is bizarre,

It is the HSCA who concluded the 14cm measurement AND

the autopsy photo show the back wound at C7/T1. Please refrain from attributing

this to me.

As shown above, the HSCA deeply disputed the evidentiary value of the BOH

photo, a point I see no further need to belabor, given your past inability to

establish the authenticity of the photos you cite.

As to the measurements, they are contradicted in the autopsy report by a

citation of a wound "just above the upper margin of scapula," which is

inconsistent with the base of JFK's neck.

In the autopsy face sheet, a wound location consistent with T3 was marked

in pencil and signed off as "verified" in pencil, according to autopsy protocol.

The 14cm measurements were recorded in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol.

Both the wound locations cited in the autopsy report were in violation of autopsy

protocol -- the 14cm measurements violate two autopsy protocols.

The most experienced of the autopsists, Dr. Pierre Finck, disputed the

evidentiary value of the autopsy measurements, a fact we've already

discussed, Pat.

IMO and indicates that you have trouble adjusting your pet theories when new information comes along.

Your analysis does not rise to the level of "new information."

I cite primary sources.

It's not my "pet theory" that the decision was reached in Washington the afternoon

and evening of 11/22/63 to blame LHO and 3 shots for the crime. That this fact does

not inform your research is the fatal flaw in your work, Pat.

Perhaps I misunderstand you.

A much more productive approach.

Do you really mean to imply that the 14 cm measurement reflects the "base of the neck" wound in the Rydberg drawings?

No, the autopsy report has two wound locations, T2 ("just above the

scapula" -- and C7/T1 (14cm below the mastoid process).

The Rydberg drawing shows a wound location above C6.

They had to make the evidence fit 3 shots -- isn't it obvious what they did?

Or are you calling the back wound seen in the autopsy photos, which is consistent with the 14 cm measurement, a "base of the neck" wound?

Dr. Wecht did. C7/T1 is not that much different than T1, is it?

btw, There is nothing theoretical about anything I've presented here.

Respectfully,

Pat

Hi, I just spent a very heavy week studying Rob Grodens research concerning medical evidence and autopsy. This included Grodens DVD as well as his books. I read and indeed saw Parkland doctors present in JFK'S trauma room, categorically state that the autopsy pictures they were shown were NOT what they observed in the trauma room i.e. the back of Kennedy's head being completely gone. O.K. then....definite proof that the autopsy pictures were fakes, no doubt about it. Maybe I should have left it at that but I always like to see both sides, so I went too the Macadam's website and I found this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm. The self same doctors are now categorically stating that the autopsy pictures ARE what they observed in the trauma room!!! Can some of you guys help me out here, because at this moment I feel chucking the whole thing in and finding a new 'hobby' Maybe this JFK assassination is just to big for me.

Denis, it's not really that complicated.

A political decision was reached in Washington DC the afternoon/evening of

11/22/63: Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK.

The autopsy report was subsequently fixed to conform to this decision.

As a result, there is a lot of contradictory evidence, including the purported

autopsy photos.

But it isn't that hard to figure out.

This alleged autopsy photo shows brain matter extruding from the back of

JFK's head:

This alleged autopsy photo does not:

The autopsy report lists two separate locations for the back wound:

1) "just above the upper border of the scapula"

2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process"

This photo of JFK shows his protruding shoulder-blades:

The "14cm-below-mastoid" measurement puts the wound at the base

of JFK's neck; but the "upper border of the scapula" is several inches

below the base of his neck.

Consensus witness testimony is stronger evidence than anything produced

by the US gov't cover-up, contrary to the argument of Pat Speer, who seems

to think that everyone who witnessed JFK's wounds suffered from the same

mass hallucination.

Denios, Pat's work is, IMO, just outstanding and merits your careful attention. It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

It is clear he has put hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying these complicated issues.

Exactly who was it that stated that there was anything "complicated" about this?

About the only thing which is "complicated" is all of the nice little "slight/sleight-of-hand" tricks which Specter & Company pulled, which surrounds THE SHOT THAT MISSED! (which by the way never actually missed).

Personally, I could never follow the logic of persons who though that the shooter (LHO) could hit JFK twice, yet could not even hit the car with THE SHOT THAT MISSED!

Certainly glad that me & Jethro are so "simple-minded" that we just could not understand all of this other complicated stuff, and thus had to stick with the facts.

Thanks for the help guys, especially the link too Pats sight, load's good info there. And Thomas I'm glad you find everything so easy, I certainly dont, but now you got me intrigued, are you saying Tague never got wounded in the cheek by a missed shot?

Denis,

I suggest you read Gerald McKnight's Breach Of Trust.

Pat Speer indulges in a significant amount of mis-information regarding

the nature of JFK's wounds, and shows no grounded understanding of

the nature of the assassination cover-up.

(T)he top four evidentiary bases to support John's premise that JFK was "removed" [certainly a polite way to characterize a murder in which the victim's head is blown away] by anti-leftists in the U.S. government are:

1. Blood soluble rounds suspected by the autopsists.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Was Sibert hot on the trail of the actual perps when he made that call to the Lab?

Killion reported the existence of the "magic bullet" CE399, and the possibility of

blood soluble rounds was thereafter ignored.

Everything said or written by the autopsists thereafter was tainted by a political

decision made in Washington DC to press the case for a lone-shooter/3-shots.

However, blood soluble rounds definitely did exist in 1963, as per the Senate's 1975

Church Committee testimony of the man who developed just such a weapons system.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

Charles Senseney before the Church Committee, Sept. 18, 1975:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Senseney: I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . .

I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on microorganism

projectiles and so forth.

[Church staffer] Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber pistol

with a sight mount at the top?

Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go into the

Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this dart

launcher against humans?

Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now,

these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because we

got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many times

bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound

known as 46-40.

Senator Howard Baker: Your principle job with the DOD, I take it, was to develop

new or exotic devices and weapons: is that correct?

Senseney: I was a project engineer for the E-1, which was type classified and

became the M-1. They were done for the Army.

(quote off)

Director of Central Intelligence William Colby, Church Committee, September 16, 1975:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Colby: The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development

of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick,

CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various

chemicals and drugs. . . .

A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating guard

dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the Agency

did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs

for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques.

These related to adesire to incapacitate captives before they could render themselves

incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could take retaliatory action....

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could

strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also

the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

(quote off)

The preliminary "general feeling" among the autopsists that JFK was struck

with blood soluble rounds was obviously well-grounded in the realm of

possibility.

There are, I submit, two pieces of photographic evidence in support of

the initial suspicions that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds designed

to paralyze him within seconds.

The cervical x-ray, which, according to the HSCA analysis, revealed

the following damage:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous

or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in

comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously

taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that

area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung

which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or

interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right

transverse process is still present.

(quote off)

What kind of round leaves an air pocket but no bullet?

The Gil Jesus video: Was JFK trying to cough up a bullet?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

By Z237, JFK froze in a manner that suggests paralysis.

2. Gen. Victor Krulak's positive identification of Gen. Edward Lansdale in

Dealey Plaza.

http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

3. US military memo verifies existence of a "Maurice Bishop" type US intelligence

agent.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g..._CIA_Agent.html

I would add to this Antonio Veciana's composite sketch of alleged Oswald-handler

"Maurice Bishop," which was identified as David Atlee Phillips by his own family.

4. J. Edgar Hoover and David Atlee Phillips pimping the "Castro-did-it" scenario

the afternoon of the assassination versus W. Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy

enforcing the "Oswald-alone" scenario the afternoon/evening of the assassination.

From David Talbot's Brothers, pg 10:

(quote on)

...(I)t's important to note that [bobby] Kennedy apparently never jumped

to the conclusion that afternoon that Fidel Castro -- the target of so much

U.S. intrigue -- was behind his brother's killing. It was the anti-Castro

camp where Bobby's suspicions immediately flew, not pro-Castro agents.

...Bobby came to this conclusion despite the energetic efforts of the CIA

and the FBI, which almost immediately after the assassination began

trying to pin the blame on Castro's government. Hoover himself

phoned Kennedy again around four that afternoon to inform him that

Oswald had shuttled in and out of Cuba, which was untrue...[T]he

FBI chief failed to convince Bobby that the alleged assassin was a

Castro agent.

(quote off)

But Averell Harriman convinced Lyndon Baines Johnson that the Soviets were

definitely not involved, the unanimous conclusion of the US government's

speedy investigators, un-named "Top Kremlinologists"...

From The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, pg. 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. [11/22/63] Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J.

William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to

Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the

Oswald association.

(quote off)

In short, this unbelievably swift rush to judgement by all parties suggests

a post-assassination struggle to control the assassination cover-up, a struggle

Harriman won hands down.

Allow me to cross post from Myra's "Can we really understand the murder of

President Kennedy, without understanding international drug trafficking?

Should have titled this thread " Can we really understand world politics without understanding international drug trafficking?"

It's the hidden history of our age.

Henrik Kruger, The Great Heroin Coup, ppg 191-2:

(quote on)

In my opinion the central manipulator in the whole narcotics scheme was the CIA,

or rather a faction within it. It is erroneous to treat the agency as a monolith. Various

lobbying groups have their own agents in the company, generating internal power

struggles that reflect political polarizations external to the CIA.

(quote off)

Among those "various lobbying groups" I'd include any number of transportation

tycoons.

Webster Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush,

Chapter 8b.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

(quote on, emphasis added)

During the years after the failure of the Bay of Pigs, [JM/WAVE] had as many as

3,000 Cuban agents and subagents, with a small army of case officers to direct

and look after each one. According to one account, there were at least 55 dummy

corporations to provide employment, cover, and commercial disguise for all these

operatives. There were detective bureaus, gun stores, real estate brokerages, boat

repair shops, and party boats for fishing and other entertainments. There was the

clandestine Radio Swan, later renamed Radio Americas. There were fleets of specially

modified boats based at Homestead Marina, and at other marinas throughout the

Florida Keys. Agents were assigned to the University of Miami and other educational

institutions.

The raison d'être of the massive capability commanded by Theodore Shackley was

now Operation Mongoose, a program for sabotage raids and assassinations to be

conducted on Cuban territory, with a special effort to eliminate Fidel Castro personally.

In order to run these operations from US territory, flagrant and extensive violation of

federal and state laws was the order of the day. Documents regarding the incorporation

of businesses were falsified. Income tax returns were faked. FAA regulations were

violated by planes taking off for Cuba or for forward bases in the Bahamas and

elsewhere. Explosives moved across highways that were full of civilian traffic. The

Munitions Act, the Neutrality Act, the customs and immigrations laws were routinely

flaunted. Above all, the drug laws were massively violated as the gallant

anti-communist fighters filled their planes and boats with illegal narcotics to be

smuggled back into the US when they returned from their missions. By 1963, the

drug-running activities of the covert operatives were beginning to attract attention.

JM/WAVE, in sum, accelerated the slide of south Florida towards the status of drug

and murder capital of the United States it achieved during the 1980's, when it became

as notorious as Chicago during Prohibition.

(quote off)

I think it's correct to consider the importance of the Golden Triangle opium trade

as a factor in JFK's death, as this thread has addressed, but I also think its a mistake

to overlook the prime importance Cuba once played in the world narcotics trade.

It wasn't so much the casinos and prostitution rackets the US Mob wanted back

from Castro, it was the Havana-to-Florida drug smuggling funnel that was coveted

more than anything.

Should have titled this thread " Can we really understand world politics without understanding international drug trafficking?"

It's the hidden history of our age.

Henrik Kruger, The Great Heroin Coup, ppg 191-2:

(quote on)

In my opinion the central manipulator in the whole narcotics scheme was the CIA,

or rather a faction within it. It is erroneous to treat the agency as a monolith. Various

lobbying groups have their own agents in the company, generating internal power

struggles that reflect political polarizations external to the CIA.

(quote off)

Among those "various lobbying groups" I'd include any number of transportation

tycoons.

Webster Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush,

Chapter 8b.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

(quote on, emphasis added)

During the years after the failure of the Bay of Pigs, [JM/WAVE] had as many as

3,000 Cuban agents and subagents, with a small army of case officers to direct

and look after each one. According to one account, there were at least 55 dummy

corporations to provide employment, cover, and commercial disguise for all these

operatives. There were detective bureaus, gun stores, real estate brokerages, boat

repair shops, and party boats for fishing and other entertainments. There was the

clandestine Radio Swan, later renamed Radio Americas. There were fleets of specially

modified boats based at Homestead Marina, and at other marinas throughout the

Florida Keys. Agents were assigned to the University of Miami and other educational

institutions.

The raison d'être of the massive capability commanded by Theodore Shackley was

now Operation Mongoose, a program for sabotage raids and assassinations to be

conducted on Cuban territory, with a special effort to eliminate Fidel Castro personally.

In order to run these operations from US territory, flagrant and extensive violation of

federal and state laws was the order of the day. Documents regarding the incorporation

of businesses were falsified. Income tax returns were faked. FAA regulations were

violated by planes taking off for Cuba or for forward bases in the Bahamas and

elsewhere. Explosives moved across highways that were full of civilian traffic. The

Munitions Act, the Neutrality Act, the customs and immigrations laws were routinely

flaunted. Above all, the drug laws were massively violated as the gallant

anti-communist fighters filled their planes and boats with illegal narcotics to be

smuggled back into the US when they returned from their missions. By 1963, the

drug-running activities of the covert operatives were beginning to attract attention.

JM/WAVE, in sum, accelerated the slide of south Florida towards the status of drug

and murder capital of the United States it achieved during the 1980's, when it became

as notorious as Chicago during Prohibition.

(quote off)

I think it's correct to consider the importance of the Golden Triangle opium trade

as a factor in JFK's death, as this thread has addressed, but I also think its a mistake

to overlook the prime importance Cuba once played in the world narcotics trade.

It wasn't so much the casinos and prostitution rackets the US Mob wanted back

from Castro, it was the Havana-to-Florida drug smuggling funnel that was coveted

more than anything.

This is an easy one, Cliff.

It's all easy at this point, where we seek not hard conclusions from the

evidence but consistencies.

No zero sum game afoot, eh?

Do you recall JFK noting shortly before the finale that, while indeed there were plotters afoot, there was no need to worry. "The Secret Service," he reportedly said, "have taken care of it."

Leaks happen. That's why we have plumbers.

How brilliant, if initially counter-intuitive: To significantly minimize you target's protection, flood the system well in advance of the real attempt with rumor upon rumor of assassination teams in place -- and not just in one city. In other words, cry wolf. Force the target to say, in essence, "What am I supposed to do, live in a bunker?"

Charles

A very possible explanation.

I'm not inclined to dismiss any plausible explanation at this point. I'm looking

for consistencies in the evidence, not conclusions.

The only thing I can prove as a fact is that JFK was shot in the back around

the level of his 3rd thoracic vertebra.

...

The entire Abort Team myth doesn't pass the laugh test.

Charles

And, in fact, in another thread on the forum many people gave their opinions on whether or not they believe the abort story.

Not one said they believe it.

Ok.

This detracts not a whit from my point, however.

After all:

Somebody was behind the very-accurate rumors Underwood heard.

Somebody was behind the FBI teletype of 11/17/63 warning

of an assassination plot afoot in Dallas.

What do we make of the fact that the guy who heard all these definitive

rumors was a Democratic Party operative...

Tycoon A a Democrat, mayhaps?...

Cliff,

Abort teams?

I refer to Tosh Plumlee's account, an example of which follows:

(quote on)

The abort team was put together very fast and was not very organized, as I have

stated in the past. MI seemed to be the main contact as well as sections within the

CIA that formed the team, TFW Sec-C, and dispatched the team to Dallas.

(quote off)

That's William Plumlee on this Forum, Oct. 17, 2004.

This is not a key point to my argument. It is wholly consistent with my argument,

but the cherry on top, at best.

A cherry with the stem attached, for easy removal.

Detonate hidden explosive charges via remote control at Love Filed as AF 1 is landing, or in the

middle of DP at 12:15 PM.

I've yet to glean this info from what I've read on the issue.

No motorcade.

Follow up with behind-the-scenes hang-outs.

No black wall monument in DC.

I am not one of those who buy the argument that JFK

was in control of American foreign policy at the time of his death. He was

AWOL on the Diem coup. In the realm of pure speculation, I see his Viet

withdrawl plans eventually getting sandbagged in the Gulf of Tonkin even if

he'd lived.

The entire Abort Team myth doesn't pass the laugh test.

Charles

I will give weight to your assessment going forward, Charles.

Cliff,

This last was a cogently argued hypothesis but with, alas, a fatal flaw:

"Perhaps the assassination had two major sponsors ..."

By definition, there had to be one and only one sponsorship group of singular purpose. Based upon an understanding of basic human nature and an appreciation of the peculiarities of the powerful, I submit that substantive conflict at the highest level of the plot simply never could have existed.

Not a "conflict," per se, but a divergence of interests based on events on the ground.

One party found a way to fulfill this admittedly singular purpose in such a way

as to leave the other party out in the cold, mayhaps...

Tycoon A agrees with Tycoon C that their similar-but-not-identical "deep" business

is suffering, and the best chance they have of re-invigorating it is killing JFK in such

a manner as they can blame Castro, thus establishing a pre-text for the military

re-acquisition of Cuba, as well as establishing more favorable US policies in the

Far East.

Tycoon A and Tycoon C collaborate on the plot, pulling all necessary strings to

put it into motion.

3 weeks before the assassination, JFK accedes to Tycoon A's agenda across the

board in regards to Cuba and Vietnam.

Tycoon A sits atop the world, while Tycoon C has been left out in the cold.

But Tycoon A can't stop Tycoon C from seeing the plot through, and although

both would have profited from a successful assassination (Castro-did-it), their

divergent interests played a definitive role in the nature of the "official" cover-up.

Tycoon C continued to press the Castro-did-it angle even after Oswald's capture,

while Tycoon A had more than enough pull to call that part of the plot off.

After all:

Somebody was behind the very-accurate rumors Underwood heard.

Somebody was behind the FBI teletype of 11/17/63 warning

of an assassination plot afoot in Dallas.

If reports of abort-teams being sent to Dallas are true, somebody with

a great deal of inside knowledge seems to have desired a different outcome.

Now I fully accept that there were cross purposes among those who operated at what I term the "facilitator" level (including "false sponsors"). These conflicts, I'd say, were desireable to the true sponsors insofar as they contributed to the post-assassination cognitive dissonance experienced by honest investigators.

At the top: All of one mind.

Again, my hypothesis, one that I'm wholly prepared to rethink should the occasion arise.

Best,

Charles

All of one mind at the top, indeed.

Unless and until one at the top sees an opportunity to "corner the market" sans the

others...as per my sig line...

[i am with you Ron in believing the key link is Cuba. However, I have problems with the last paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that the original conspirators covered-up the evidence linking the assassination to Castro. The record shows that this was the work of LBJ, Hoover and Dulles. I am not convinced that these are the same people who organized the assassination. LBJ and Co covered up the assassination, not because they organized it because they did not like where a full-investigation of the assassination would go. If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba.

John,

My problem is with the near-universal referencing of "the conspirators" and/or "the original conspirators." The terms are all-encompassing, vague, and simplistic, and their endless applications are, in my opinion, ultimately detrimental to our shared efforts to discover truth and effect justice.

I don't have the temerity to suggest that the three-tiered conspiracy structure that I postulate has been demonstrated to be an accurate depiction of reality. But I maintain that, as we move the focus of our investigative efforts (on this forum, at least) from the established "how" (conspiracy) to the questions of "who" and "why," we must come to some concensus regarding the design of the plot.

At further risk of being labled a nitpicker (or a nit-something else, I fear), I offer this: In my informed (I can but hope) opinion, the same people conceived of and sponored the organization, or grand design, of the assassination and the broad contours of one of their vile, brilliant creation's most important components -- the cover-up.

We are in lockstep agreement that "LBJ and Co" directed the cover-up. We part company here: In my grand design hypothesis, however, they did not possess, singularly or in the agregate, either the power or the authority or the chutzpah to defy the conspiracy's prime movers -- for whom they labored, to whom they reported, and, like JFK, at whose pleasure they served.

Hence I most respectfully and utterly disagree with your statement, "If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba."

Instead: Since the same people conceived of the assassination in all of its elements, including the cover-up, ordered its facilitation, and possessed the power -- indelibly demonstrated in Dealey Plaza -- to eliminate opposition to their plans, the US invasion of Cuba could not and indeed did not take place, according to plan.

Either that, or "LBJ and Co" thumbed their collective nose at the forces that destroyed JFK, and as a result suffered not the slightest negative consequence.

Charles Drago

Charles, may I suggest another possibility?

Perhaps the assassination had two major sponsors with over-lapping but not

identical agendas.

One sponsor was driven by both a rabid right-wing ideology and deep, vested

business interests in both Cuba and the Far East. ("Deep" in the PD Scott sense,

that which is not meant to be uncovered.)

The other sponsor had deep, vested business interests all over the world,

especially in Cuba and the Far East.

In the months leading up to the assassination, the non-ideological sponsor

enjoys a series of favorable foreign policy outcomes that satisfy his deep,

vested interests, to the point that JFK's assassination was no longer necessary.

At that point -- say a mere 3 weeks before the assassination -- this non-ideological

sponsor does everything he can to warn JFK away from Dallas.

Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, pg 239:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

The truth according to [Democratic National Committee advance man]

Marty Underwood is that in the days immediately before Dallas, "We

were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be

assassinated in Dallas; there were no ifs, ands, or buts about it."

(quote off)

For the non-ideological sponsor, the JFK plot was merely a contingency plan,

useful only if JFK had not proven compliant with this sponsor's goals.

While this man had a great deal of power, he could not call the plot off himself,

as it had progressed beyond his ability to directly abort it; nor did he dare reveal

it directly to Kennedy, for fear of disclosing his own involvement.

Upon Oswald's capture this man had the power to pull the plug on the Castro-did-it

scenario and virtually ordered LBJ to cover it up.

Had Oswald been gunned down on 11/22 or had disappeared, this sponsor would

have gone along with the Castro-did-it scenario -- but it didn't happen. Given his

extensive business dealings with the Communist world, this man decided to cut his

losses and initiate the official "lone nut" cover-up within minutes of Oswald's capture.

He wouldn't get Cuba back in business (6-letter-word-starting-with-H), but he'd get

his way in Vietnam, which was going to happen if Kennedy had lived or not.

In the end, it was cooler feet, more than cooler heads, who prevailed.

Most of us agree that some of the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination of JFK. Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation?

Don,

What do the following have in common?

* Cuba in the 50's

* Vietnam mid-60's to mid-70's

* Afghanistan post-9/11/01

6 letter word, starts with H...

I think we need to look at the big picture here.

Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, ppg 299-300:

(quote on, emphasis added)

There are those who object that no conspiracy, of the scale contemplated

in this book, could have remained a secret for so long in a society as open

as America's. Admittedly, the open surface of our society is no mere facade.

However, as I suggested at the beginning of this book, beneath the open surface

lie connections and relationships of long-standing, immune to disclosure,

and capable of great crimes including serial murder.

The postwar international alliance between intelligence and drug traffickers

is perhaps the best-documented instance of such a connection, one where

denial persists despite limited revelations about the 1960-63 plots to

murder Fidel Castro. It is not the only such connection, and indeed merges with

others, notably unassailable networks responsible for gambling and prostitution in

the United States.

There are two other special reasons for suspecting the intelligence-sanctioned

drug networks in particular. One is their role in connecting so many disparately

centered different networks, from FBN to FBI to foreign casinos to local corruption

in Dallas and elsewhere. The other is their key role in transnational connections

to the deep politics of Mexico and Nicaragua, two countries clearly involved in the

assassination story.

(quote off)

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

For the final time:

No difference whatsoever. In either case the patsy cannot contradict the

"irrevocable proof" he was an instrument of Fidel.

It was the Joint Chiefs who set the bar for the "irrevocable proof" requirement

for an invasion, as laid out in the Feb '62 memo on Operation Dirty Tricks (see

Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 84).

A captured suspect doesn't establish "irrevocable proof" of his guilt when he's loudly

proclaiming his innocence, does he?

Someone flying to Havana via Redbird and Mexico City is hardly "irrevocable proof," is it?

Hoover's claim to have evidence that Oswald "went to Cuba on several occasions,"

and the Kostikov-connection in Mexico City, would have provided the bulk of the

"irrevocable" evidence, I suspect.

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

The difference would be that he actually got to Havana from Dallas. Just as Oswald disappears, a plane takes off from Redbird, and later one person, had to be Oswald, is seen catching an exclusive flight from Mexico City to Havana. This would be the icing on the cake in the portrayal of Oswald as a Castro agent. In public perception, that would be far more convincing than the fact that Oswald handed out leaflets in New Orleans and went to Mexico City about a visa.

The "irrefutable proof" that Oswald fled to Castro (including, so I read, some luggage left in Mexico City) went down the tubes with Oswald's arrest. With Oswald sitting in jail, calling himself a patsy and asking for a New York lawyer, the plotters simply didn't have enough to make a case against Castro. So they didn't. They decided that a lone-nut assassin was in jail, until they could get rid of him.

Okay, so it's not the final time...

Ron, I think it was the plotter's betters who made that decision, on the spot, upon

Oswald's capture. They didn't need to hear him plead his innocence, they knew

it was coming. Plan A went awry, and damage control ensued.

As Larry Hancock has noted, the plotters' attempts to press the Castro-sponsored-Oswald

scenario, even after Oswald's death, were overwhelmed by Lyndon Johnson (acting

under orders from his betters, imo. )

For the final time: In terms of justifying a retaliatory invasion of Cuba, what’s the difference between Oswald being presumed to reside in Havana, and a dead Oswald presumed to have been attempting to escape to Havana?

For the final time:

No difference whatsoever. In either case the patsy cannot contradict the

"irrevocable proof" he was an instrument of Fidel.

It was the Joint Chiefs who set the bar for the "irrevocable proof" requirement

for an invasion, as laid out in the Feb '62 memo on Operation Dirty Tricks (see

Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 84).

A captured suspect doesn't establish "irrevocable proof" of his guilt when he's loudly

proclaiming his innocence, does he?

To avoid confusion, my current comments are in this lovely colour.

Make mine burgundy.

First a few thoughts on methodology that might help to dispel some confusion, or make my own points painstakingly clear, for I fear they have not been thus far.

It is important for us to distinguish between what the plotters of the assassination planned, and what actually transpired, to the extent that we can do so and to the extent that there is a difference between the two, but only based upon evidence.

It is even more important to distinguish between the plotters themselves, and all those who aided and abetted the coverup of the crime, for they are not synonymous. Quick hypothetical example: You are John McCone and you arrive at your office on the morning of 11/23/63. You are handed a report indicating a few of your lower level operatives may have played a part in the prior day's events. You have two stark choices: 1) you go public with what you know, which will not resurrect the dead President, but will surely lead to the evisceration of your own Agency, the last bulwark against Godless Communism, thereby leaving your country in ruins; or, 2) you keep your mouth shut, bury the report, contribute to the necessary ensuing obfuscation of the details and pray to your God for forgiveness.

The fact that you - McCone - have contributed to the coverup in no way implicates you as a plotter, nor in any way suggests you had any witting foreknowledge of the event. It means only that for the sake of your own institution's continued existence, which you deem of paramount importance, and for the sake of ensuring your country isn't castigated as some banana republic where democracy is merely a bad joke, you have committed the lesser of two evils.

It is a common failing to assume that all those who participated in the coverup must also, ergo, have been witting participants in the crime. It is a logical fallacy, and must be eschewed at all costs, for otherwise there will never be any truth disclosed.

For my own purposes, I try to avoid vague and amorphous terms such as "they" and "the powers that be," both because they are imprecise and open to misinterpretation, and because such terms serve no useful purpose to my own way of thinking. While I am happy to entertain any notional mental exercise that might identify all those who conspired to kill the President, I refrain from making assertions against any individual unless and until I think I've encountered sufficiently weighty evidence to make those allegations. Sweeping generalizations of who must have been involved don't do credit to any of us, unless we bolster those assertions with indisputable, legally compelling hard fact. To do otherwise is to become a "buff," which I am not and don't intend to become.

Robert, you are, as always, the very soul of reason.

I must confess I've got my fingers caught in the cookie jar in this thread,

speculation-wise, implicating people without a shred of direct proof. I've tried

hard to avoid this in the past -- it is, after all, treason and murder we are charging.

That said, I think there is sufficient evidence to make 3 guys top suspects:

Edward Lansdale, David Morales, and David Atlee Phillips.

Whether this evidence is of sufficient legal weight is certainly arguable.

(Dammit, Jim, I'm just a poker dealer!)

As for the 3 transportation tycoons I mentioned in prior posts, I'd be better

off continuing my studies, and will withhold comment prior to more rigorous

investigation, as it were.

Any criminal investigator begins at the bottom of the crime's possible pyramid of characters and then works his way up the food chain, using the lower echelon players to implicate those higher up. Frustrating, slow and tedious as this methodology might be, it is used for a reason; it leads to unimpeachable evidence that reasonable people can agree carries legal weight. It is my goal to employ such tactics, because they yield the most fruit.

Consequently, without wishing to appear as though I'm trying to absolve LBJ, Harriman or anyone else in such high positions of power, I refrain from making such assertions because I've yet to see sufficient proof of their involvement; by which I mean evidence that carries legal weight, not just what might be inferred from suggestive facts. Unfortunately, in the absence of many such legally probative details, we are all reduced to a degree of speculation, which I don't seek to discourage, but must stress should be done without causing offense to either common sense or the facts on the ground, such as they are.

Cliff,

We are destined to disagree. But this is fun, so:

You quote Larry Hancock thusly: "[We should] first view the conspiracy to frame Oswald as a Castro (or both Cuban and Soviet associated) conspirator, a plan that became totally unraveled when Oswald was taken into custody. And second, we see that the so-called 'cover-up' was an independent, largely unplanned and highly reactive effort to ensure that a Lee Harvey Oswald would [take] the fall all by himself -- as a lone nut."

I truly dig disagreeing with experts and other correspondents for whom I harbor the utmost respect; in the former category I place RCD and LH. And your expertise is also highly valued. That being said ... you're all so very wrong!

The conspiracy to frame Oswald as a Cuban and/or Soviet conspirator did not come close to unraveling -- although I'm willing to stipulate that the patsy's survival to 11/24 might have minimally frayed an edge of the plot's fabric.

My proof? In spite of (as you might put it) Oswald's survival, the legend of his commie sponsorship was strong enough to convince the likes of Earl Warren and others to shut up and support the LN lie.

Which does not mean this was the plotters' intent, only that it is how things played out. If you have some probative proof that this was the plotters' intent, then you can make a case for your claim. What we have from you at present is vehemently stated opinion, which is no substitute for reasons to believe that opinion.

Further, I've yet to read anyone's explantion of how a living LHO could have said or done anything to scuttle an invasion plan that in turn could not be tossed into the memory hole.

Get creative. Write the scene. What does Oswald have to say? To whom does he say it?

Nothing. To nobody. He evaporates.

A dead Commie would have worked just as well as a disappeared Commie.

Once Kennedy was dead, the only hitch that could queer the plot was exactly

what happened: the patsy captured alive.

Oswald could have been struck mute in the Texas Theater, cooler feet would

still have prevailed: no invasion.

(SNIP for brevity)

I say again the following, as clearly as I can and hopefully for the final time as this is getting truly tedious. The plotters desired two things: the removal of a President who had been obstinately refusing the rebuffing their plans on a number of fronts [not merely Cuba, so don't misread what I haven't written] and foresaw the additional benefit of regime change in Cuba. An at least superficially Cuban-sponsored assassin was their means to achieve this. Irrespective of whether there was a fully formed plan by the US military to invade Cuba extant minutes before the assassination, there most assuredly would have been one within minutes after the assassination, had the plotters' aim succeeded in doing more than merely murdering the President [which, by the way, could have been achieved at any time, just about anywhere, without involving anything more than a lone psycho.] Those who insist I'm claiming this was "all about Cuba" are purposefully missing the point. No it wasn't all about Cuba; they wanted the President dead. Period. Full stop. But, if a bit of clever planning on their part also yielded the return of Cuba as a US vassal state, so much the better. Two birds; one stone.

And this is where you and I diverge some, Robert. A distinction needs

to be drawn between personal agendas, and the overall goal of the operation. Some

of the plotters, I would speculate, had their own vital personal interests in seeing JFK

dead, but for others his death was incidental, the collateral damage of a failed plot.

Thus I find JFK's death ancillary, the primary goal having failed.

No, it wasn't all about Cuba, but reclaiming Cuba was the one goal

all the plotters shared, the operational aim, the action item around which

the plot was organized. JFK's death served individual agendas -- it did nothing

for the group.

(snip for brevity)

The invasion of Cuba didn't happen because the sponsors of the assassination didn't want it to happen. Never did.

I find the following intriguing, although not dispositive by any means.

A passage from the Feb. 4 '07 Education Forum JFK post by Robert Howard:

"A Letter to the American People...on the Unspeakable, by James W. Douglass"

(quote on)

Myron Billett was a messenger and go-between for Chicago Mafia don,

Sam Giancana. In January l968 Giancana asked Billett to make the

arrangements for "a very important meeting" between New York Mafia

leader Carlo Gambino and some government representatives. Billett set

up the meeting at a motel in Apalachin, New York, the site of an early l960s

mob summit.

Billett said that at the meeting (which he attended) the three representatives

of the CIA and FBI asked Carlo Gambino if he would accept a $l million contract

to assassinate Martin Luther King. Billett recalled the exact words of Gambino's

reply: "In no way would I or the family get involved with you people again. You

messed up the Cuba deal. You messed up the Kennedy deal."

The CIA and FBI men said they would make "other arrangements" and departed.

(quote off)

You can state this, as though it were fact, based upon what, other than supposition?

And yes, perhaps LHO's short-term, post-assassination survival did necessitate improvisations on the plot's basic theme. Merde happens. Any plotters worth the name understand this, and prepare to react if need be.

But wait, you say. The evidence against LHO as lone nut is so weak, today no one in his or her right mind could possibly accept it without challenge ...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Has the parent state ever truly abandoned the LN lie (HSCA's conclusion notwithstanding -- anything)? Is not the parent state's imprimatur still the only endorsement that counts? That is powerful enough to deny justice?

WHAT IF LHO dies on 11/22/63? Nothing else changes. The faux commie connections still function to disarm honest investigators, the LN lie still is promoted.

And yet I have never suggested that Oswald was to die, at least not in any public fashion. Somebody, irrespective of whom, had to walk across that tarmac in Mexico City to flee to Havana, or at least be reported to have done so. "Oswald" couldn't have done that if he were either publicly known to be dead or in police custody, which is the rub.

WHAT IF the LN "evidence" is transparently bogus? Which it is. The parent state endorses it, so it is official, which means it is as real and as powerful and as persuasive as it has to be to protect the sponsors and their great game.

None of my previously referenced facilitators/false sponsors -- including LBJ and JEH and the JCS -- had the power to do anything about the Cuba disappointment.

Feel free to reference whatever facilitators/false sponsors you like - but in light of the scenario I've described above, none of those you've named would have had the power to withstand the desire of the populace to exact revenge upon Castro.

Cuba was marginalized. Cuba was an asset.

Again, presenting evidence for this contention, rather than just the contention, would be most helpful, not least to your own case. I realize there are those who think the US has been entirely sanguine about Castro remaining in power since 1959, and that the threat he hypothetically poses only bolsters Pentagon demands for more funds, etc. However, this misses a few points. Surely the Pentagon hasn't been so bereft of other similarly threatening states that the overthrow of Castro would have put the Pentagon out of business. There were other threats to justify keeping the Pentagon around, were there not? Moreover, how does one justify presenting the Pentagon with ever greater budgetary appropriations if they never actually do anything with the money?

All eyes turned far eastward.

I used to find this argument more compelling before

I listened to this:

http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/cli...nam_memoir.html

It seems to me that the Commander-in-Chief was AWOL on the Diem coup,

and was not firmly in control (to say the least) of American foreign policy

in SE Asia.

Further into pure speculation -- if Kennedy had lived there still would have

been a Gulf of Tonkin Incident amidst a US Presidential campaign, and the US

would have sent ground troops into South Vietnam, Kennedy or no Kennedy.

Only because “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley.” Had Oswald been presumed to reside in Havana after the assassination, all eyes would have turned southward, in a heartbeat. Followed by boots on the ground and death from above.

Your serve.

Charles

Cliff,

We arrive at the core of our disagreement.

And a bracing disagreement it is, Charles! Most enjoyable...

Let me turn it over to one of my main guys, Larry Hancock, who puts it

better than I can. Someone Would Have Talked, pg 311-2:

(quote on)

Among the difficulties in understanding the Kennedy conspiracy, perhaps

the most challenging is reconciling the many elements that appear to be

contradictory. This has been made even more difficult for those who have

viewed the "cover-up" as an extension of the conspiracy. That difficulty

disappears if we first view the conspiracy to frame Oswald as a Castro (or

both Cuban and Soviet associated) conspirator, a plan that became totally

unraveled when Oswald was taken into custody. And second, we see that

the so-called "cover-up" was an independent, largely unplanned and highly

reactive effort to ensure that a Lee Harvey Oswald would [take] the fall all

by himself -- as a lone nut.

* The plot was to show the US President being killed by a Castro sponsored

conspiracy.

* The plotters were unable to execute their full plan due to Oswald's capture.

* Due to Oswald's role as an intelligence dangle and his contact with Kostikov,

the initial appearance was still that Oswald might have been acting as a

Communist dupe.

* Both the FBI and the CIA were aware of the Kostikov implications; when,

how, and if they shared this information with the new President is unclear.

* Lyndon Johnson personally led the official cover-up to eliminate any

public suggestion of conspiracy while leveraging confidential information

and the threat of war to make the cover-up work.

* The "lone nut" was a creation of the official cover-up, not of the Kennedy

plot.

* The plotters follow-on efforts to maintain conspiracy were overwhelmed

by Johnson.

(quote off)

You write, "Again, you're assuming the same guys who plotted the murder engaged in the 'lone nut' cover-up.

"The plot failed. Period. One of the key players, Harriman, was a big loser, imo."

The plot succeeded beyond all expectations. The plotters had one -- and only one -- goal: the elimination of JFK in the form of a lesson for all who would follow.

The LN cover-up was part of the plot from its nascent stages.

See above.

There were three tiers of conspirators, each to varying degrees hierarchical in nature: sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics. Suspects for involvement at the mid-level include the likes of Phillips, Lansdale, Fursetseva, Andropov, Conein, King, Harvey, Morales, Simpson, Rosselli, and/or others. The organizations and interests with which they remain identified may be labeled "false sponsors." In terms of making the cover-up work: the more the merrier.

George Michael Evica describes a large segment of them succinctly and powerfully: "a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences." (emphasis added)

At the lowest level are the hunters and their wingmen/women.

At the highest level? The aforementioned masters, for whom perpetuation of the Cold War was the ultimate goal.

To the degree that JFK personified the threat of peace, and Castro stood then as now as a critically important component in the overall plan to preserve manageable East-West hostilities in order to perpetuate and maximize profit and power for the masters, the former had to go, and the latter had to stay.

Khrushchev was soon to follow JFK as a victim of, in his case, a bloodless coup as ordered by the same masters, for the same reasons.

Now I'm not comfortable with the melodrama inherent in use of terms like "the masters." So let's be a tad more verbose and identify those at the sponsorship level of the assassination as the proprietors of -- with apologies to Frank Loesser -- the oldest established permanent floating crap game in the world.

And I mean crap.

Charles

Your analysis has a great deal to recommend it. But I still don't think it

hits the very core of the case.

For me, in my view/opinion, the key word here is "floating."

W. Averell Harriman, Clint Murchison, Jr., and Ari Onassis were in the business

of "floating" a lot more than the usual crap.

Havana was the world capital for heroin in the 50's and the "masters" wanted it back.

Chiba, y'all, was behind it all.

I know I've broached this subject before, but here goes again. If the primary motive behind the JFK assassination was to invade Cuba, and those powerful forces who engineered it felt strongly enough about this issue to construct a coverup so enormous it is still in full force today, then why did Cuba as a political issue die with JFK in Dallas?

Upon what pre-text would an invasion of Cuba been predicated, post-Kennedy?

Aren't you assuming that the plotters of the murder were also the architects of

the "Lone Nut" cover-up?

And, to the best of my understanding, Cuba never stopped being a political issue.

Even accepting the premise that Oswald's capture changed everything (which I don't), why wouldn't these powerful conspirators have addressed this overriding concern of theirs (the invasion of Cuba, ouster of Castro) at some future point in time?

Again, under what pre-text?

LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Helms, etc., all remained active for a number of years after the assassination. Certainly the CIA remained active in clandestine affairs. Why was nothing more done about this whole "Cuban" thing? Do you honestly believe that these men risked the assassination of a sitting U.S. president, and engaged in an all-emcompassing coverup that lasted decades, all for....nothing?

Again, you're assuming the same guys who plotted the murder engaged in

the "lone nut" cover-up.

The plot failed. Period. One of the key players, Harriman, was a big loser, imo.

If the motive was the overthrow of Castro, they achieved nothing by killing JFK.

They may have achieved everything if Oswald had been gunned down 11/22.

I'll say it again- I think the whole "Cuban" connection to the assassination is a red herring (much like the "Mafia-did-it" theories). The people who had JFK killed did so for far more important reasons than ousting a tinpot dictator in another country.

Of course they did. They wanted their Havana-to-Florida smuggling funnel back.

Having the international capital of smack 90 miles off-shore was a major reason

for the heroin scourge of the 50's.

We all know about "The French Connection" and the US Mob. The Corsican Mafia

produced the heroin and the Sicilian-American Outfit distributed it Stateside.

But these organized crime families didn't own the ships that brought the heroin in

from Europe and SE Asia. I'd speculate that it was transportation tycoons like

the Harrimans and Murchisons and Ari Onassis who played key roles in the

international distribution of narcotics.

The importance of Cuba to these people should not be under-estimated.

Follow the money. Especially black market money.

This is great stuff you're posting Cliff. Really informative. Though as an impartial observer, which I am in this discussion, it doesn't meet the burden of proof. I don't see why Oswald's capture was inherantly automatically a show-stopper if the plotters really wanted to attack Cuba.

It simply wasn't possible to effectively frame the patsy while he was

"emphatically" proclaiming his innocence.

For instance, Hoover had some ginned up "evidence" that Oswald had

been in Cuba. That couldn't be brought out once it could be rebutted.

The foundation of the plot was the frame job, the sheep-dipping of Oswald

as an agent of Fidel, which required the silence of the patsy.

When a strip club owner gunned him down on live TV, the Mob became

immediately suspect, not Castro.

Now if Harriman and LBJ didn't want to attack Cuba anyway and used this as an excuse that could be a factor. But what compelling case would they bring forth to squelch a planned invasion just because the patsy was scooped up by a right-wing CIA-friendly police force in the heart of "nut country"?

According to the Operation Northwoods documents, in order to establish

a successful pre-text for an invasion of Cuba there had to be "irrevocable

proof" of Communist complicity.

Oswald in custody was highly "revocable" as an agent of Castro.