Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jon G. Tidd

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,595 profile views

Jon G. Tidd's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. Sandy, I don't believe Marina's husband was working for any intelligence agency. Nonetheless, the fact Marina's husband got a job at the Texas School Book Depositary is extremely suspicious. It's too convenient. It supports the idea he acted spontaneously in shooting JFK. I work backward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. What led up to that? Quite some planning, I believe. Then I work forward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. Why hasn't the truth of his killing been told? The elegant solution is that Oswald did it, acting alone. I believe, and I could be wrong, the elegant solution is seductive. But it asks for suspension of belief.
  2. Paul, The NOLA photos in which I'm interested are the photos of June. As someone else has written, June knew who was taking her photograph, given her pose and attitude.
  3. Paul, Here's the point of my question: When was JFK first struck? From where? By what? I'll leave it at that. The debate here is based mostly on opinions, not facts. Let's have verifiable facts.
  4. Facts are paramount. To all here: What are the verifiable facts?
  5. Peter Dale Scott made a big deal of drug-running in "Deep Politics", a terrific book IMO. Did drug-running have something to do with JFK's murder? I don't know. I do know first-hand that drugs poured into South Viet Nam. The drugs came from the "Golden Triangle", or whatever. A lot of American G.I.s got hooked on pure heroin. A lot of money was made in South Viet Nam and the U.S. from those drugs. Drugs played a big role, a huge role, in America's effort in Viet Nam. There have been books written that assert the Bushes got into the drug game. There even has been at least one book asserting JFK dabbled with LSD. Drugs were an important commercial item throughout the 1960s. I believe it's possible, just possible, JFK was killed so that the drug trade could flourish in S.E. Asia. Possible.
  6. Lance, A PMO today (2016) states on its face that it's negotiable in the U.S. That was not true in the early 1960s. You'll note I did not write that PMOs were subject to the UCC, so the cases you cite are inapposite. If you wish to study PMOs, how they were processed in the early 1960s, the one-endorsement rule, and the function of bank stamps, I recommend you check out the 1967 Cornell Law Review Article, "Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders," by John D. O'Malley.
  7. DVP, You make good points about the framing of Oswald and the cover-up. How can one believe the U.S. Government and the Texas government went to such lengths to pin the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit on Oswald? You plead for simplicity. You make good points. You are a conservative who believes in government. I find that odd.
  8. Lance, By about 1962, there was a long-established procedure for the processing of bank items. This procedure was reflected in Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Article 3 dealt with "commercial paper", which were and are negotiable instruments. Article 4 dealt with bank deposits. The same articles exist today, hardly unchanged from 1962. Postal money orders (PMOs) were considered by the courts in the early 1960s not to be negotiable instruments. Today they are considered negotiable instruments. The change is one of form, not substance. In the early 1960s, PMOs were not negotiated as they were transferred from one bank to another; but the fact they weren't negotiated was based on the one-endorser rule. In fact, in substance, PMOs were handled by all banks as negotiable instruments because of the fact a bank stamp wasn't considered an endorsement, even though it functioned like one. The bank stamp was critical; it's what allowed a transferor bank to be paid by a transferee bank. The A. Hidell PMO was not stamped by First National Bank of Chicago (First). First therefore did not get paid by the Chicago Fed for the A. Hidell PMO...unless you or someone else produces bank statements to the contrary. Lance, I respect that you are a member of the Arizona Bar. I extend every professional courtesy to you. But I think you stray from your training and experience when you post on this blog.
  9. Ron, From what I know and also from what I observed in Viet Nam, the CIA's top officers were oriented toward the USSR and Cuba, while for the CIA Viet Nam was pretty much a young person's game. The CIA had a large, broad operation in Viet Nam. The mafia bigwigs, from what I've read, were interested in Cuba, not Viet Nam. The drug profits from Viet Nam went mainly to the CIA, not to the mafia. The Army was very much oriented toward Viet Nam. Certainly the Air Force, Navy, and Marines played large roles in Viet Nam. Insiders like Bundy and Harriman were on top of both Cuba and Viet Nam, but by the fall of 1963, their focus had shifted toward Viet Nam. The anti-Castro Cubans pretty clearly had no interest in Viet Nam. Middle Eastern countries affected by JFK's policies and death had no stake in either Cuba or Viet Nam. That's how I see the players oriented in the fall of 1963. I don't see much overlap between the interest groups.
  10. Martin, I'll begin with a question. If you or anyone else here wants more, please just ask. I don't want to bore anyone. The question is, what is "intelligence"? Not human IQ. But military intelligence. That is U.S. Army intelligence. Naval and Air Force intelligence are similar. Not to be ignored. Intelligence is output not input. Intelligence is a product for consumers. Still with me, Martin? Good. Question for you, Martin: Based strictly on what I've written, what is "intelligence"?
  11. We'd know for sure if we knew for sure why JFK was killed. The answer's clearly no if the plotters wanted Castro overthrown and Cuba "liberated". The answer's clearly yes if the plotters wanted a vastly expanded American commitment in South Viet Nam. The answer is also clearly yes if the plotters, for whatever reason(s), simply wanted JFK dead. I subscribe to this view, but only this view. The three views presented here divide the anti-Warren Commission group into three bitterly divided camps. Pretty clearly, the plotters didn't care what LBJ was going to do as president. No one in power, except some senators, opposed LBJ's domestic or foreign policy. LBJ might have felt the sting of anti-war protests; but those were not barbs launched by the power elite. The mafia and anti-Castro exiles, together with their CIA bedmates, were invisible by the fall of 1965. In early November 1965, the First Air Cav tangled with NVA regulars in the Ia Drang Valley. That battle made Cuba distant and forgotten history for TV-tuned Americans. So who won from the killing of JFK? IMO, it wasn't the army, and it certainly wasn't the CIA. Sure, many Americans rejoiced at JFK's death. I observed some of them. IMO, those who won from JFK's killing continue to profit from his death today.
  • Create New...