Jon G. Tidd

Shenon does not understand the JFK assassination. He is a conventional thinker. JFK, I assert, was not killed for an emotional reason. Such as, the killer(s) hated JFK. JFK was killed for a practical reason. He was killed because he opposed X. The killers, I assert, hated JFK.

Thanks, Vanessa. The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions. Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence". The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.

Cliff, I don't understand why you're attacked for your "compartmentalization" thinking. You are correct.

The official story is that Dorothy Hunt was carrying $10,000 to pay off some Watergate figure. This is the equivalent of any official story.

JFK's commitment to go to the moon was pure JFK. It set a lofty goal that inspired many Americans. In that way, it was like the Peace Corps or the Green Berets. JFK had a sense of adventure that was reflected in his policies and his reading (Ian Fleming). FWIW, I have doubts about claimed successes of the Apollo program. For many reasons. Like the official story of the JFK assassination, which is widely disbelieved abroad and at home, the official record of the Apollo program does not hold up especially well under close scrutiny on a number of points. Oh, I know. The U.S. Government lied to us about the JFK assassination but surely not about the Apollo program.

Brian, Is the Dorothy in the book title Dorothy Hunt? FWIW, I've always thought the plane crash in which Dorothy Hunt died suspicious. Especially the way the FBI immediately took control of the crash site.

Rostow's call always has interested me. He wants clearly to affect world opinion as to the assassination. Why? What is his dog in the fight? Dewey and Nixon are interchangeable with Dulles and McCloy, except in one respect. They are interchangeable as Establishment figures; guys who would go along with the plan. Except Nixon veered off course. That's why Watergate occurred.

Gehlen was a "good Nazi". In post-war America, American citizens came to learn a "good Nazi" was better than any communist.

Brian Schmidt, Wealthy individuals in 1963 and before often acted through intermediaries. That is true today as well. Ramon, Your comment about who is wealthy today vs. who was wealthy in 1963 makes me realize that today's wealthy individuals in the U.S. (Bezos, Buffett, Gates, Zuckerberg, for example) are a new phenomenon. They are good persons, who have made tremendous wealth honestly, taking advantage of their minds and technology. The wealthiest individuals in 1963 were a different breed. They were direct descendants of the Robber Barons. They took advantage of connections in many cases to achieve corrupt ends.

Ramon, Here's what I imagine happened. A small group of individuals agreed there had to be a coup. Each of these individuals had power consisting of knowledge, not merely wealth. The knowledge of [a] whom to engage for the hit, and whom to engage to handle the cover-up. The cover-up was going to be much more difficult than the hit. Americans always have preferred quick, clean solutions to crimes, even at the expense of innocent defendants. So choosing and setting up a patsy would have been central to the cover-up. Whoever managed this part of the cover-up needed to be a professional, a professional who understood America, but maybe a foreign national, maybe. The cover-up had to be pretty air-tight. After all, JFK's murder was sure to be examined closely. Professionals needed to arrange the air-tightness. Everything from the Klein's paper trail to the autopsy photos and x-rays. SBT advocates rightly argue that the Oswald-did-it theory is simple and does not require such complex machinations. Simplicity always has appealed to Americans, so SBT advocates have a natural foothold. The problem with simplicity in the realm of human actions is that it rarely reflects reality. Humans, alone or together, do remarkably complex and puzzling things. As one example, I refer to two movies: "Eight Men Out" and "Blackhawk Down". Why hasn't the conspiracy unraveled? I suspect that today certain individuals and institutions would take a hit if it did. These individuals and institutions don't want to take such a hit.

Ron, I understand that Robert Knudsen had two sets of autopsy photos. The x-rays were taken by the U.S. Navy. I don't know who controlled the x-rays. I know that the photos and x-rays are in the official record. The two are in conflict. JFK researchers have written mightily on the x-rays and the photos.

James Douglass, in a video clip presented here by Douglas Caddy, pulls from his wallet a piece of paper on which are written the words of a JFK insider regarding the autopsy photos and x-rays, which are at such odds with the pronouncements of the Bethesda physicians. The insider says the photos and x-rays, because they are government documents, must be correct. The insider goes on to say, if the photos and x-rays are phony, the deception defies understanding. Douglass ends his presentation by saying that's what is meant by "unspeakable". Who had the power to cause the autopsy photos and x-rays to be falsified? That is a central question. It goes to why JFK was killed and why his killing continues to be covered up. It goes to the reality of who had such power, to kill the President of the United States and get away with it. Please let's strike LBJ, beneficiary though he was. The mafia. The CIA. The FBI. The rightwingers. The DPD. The anti-Castro Cubans. Castro. All of 'em. Strike 'em because they are distractions. They draw our attention but are dead ends. Certain wealthy Americans who had and have global financial ambitions come to mind. Americans whose goal is to make money. Period. Americans who had and have their own intelligence networks. Americans who would easily intersect through intermediaries with foreign operators. Americans who could pull strings way above the reach of the CIA. This is all speculation. It's curve-fitting.

It appears to me the standard interpretation of the BOP debacle, in all possible variations, is this: palace intrigue beyond JFK's control or comprehension both doomed the mission and laid failure for the mission at JFK's doorstep. If I'm wrong about this, please tell me how. Assuming I'm correct, what does the standard interpretation expect of a U.S. president? Here's what I expect: better leadership, both here and abroad, than has been exhibited for many, many years. Yes, I know. JFK had enemies. So what? Under the Constitution, the President has enormous power. JFK, IMO, was loath to use that power. He chose words, persuasion, which is leadership. He was a great president. But he failed to wield the power of his office.

Jim, Thanks for the Powerpoint slides. FWIW, I've believed for awhile, as I've written here, that JFK was killed because of his Middle Eastern policy. Not because of Viet Nam; not because of Africa.

Cliff, FWIW, I believe JFK had the power to cancel the BOP invasion; had sufficient knowledge of the impending invasion to do so; and failed to do so. IMO, it's easy and fair to blame the CIA for the invasion and its failure. The CIA was running the operation. But it was running the operation with JFK's permission, implicit or explicit. Given JFK's constitutional role as CIC of military forces (including CIA forces), I don't see how the BOP operation can be laid at anyone's doorstep except JFK's. For sure, if the BOP invasion had succeeded in toppling Castro, the JFK administration would have claimed and received credit, at least domestically.

Scott, How do you account for the massive cover-up? I can't believe the cover-up has been aimed at [a] causing the American people to distrust the U.S. government in order to protect some anti-Castro Cubans. That makes no sense to me. The American people for years would have accepted that anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK; and it certainly would have gotten the CIA, LBJ, and others off the hook.

In a military unit, say an army division, the commanding officer of which is a two-star general, if something goes wrong -- for example, if a company that's part of the division goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of unarmed civilians -- the question of what went wrong starts at the top with the commanding officer. Yes, the usual procedure is to push responsibility as far down the chain of command as possible. In the case of My Lai, that meant hanging Lt. Calley and letting Captain Medina off the hook. Colin Powell, a field grade officer in the Americal Division, sealed the deal against Calley. For Calley, being a low-life infantry officer, that meant being a sacrificial cow was pro forma. JFK was the commander of all military forces. What those forces did, he did. JFK didn't dodge responsibility for BOP. Nor for Diem's assassination.

Kudos, Jim, for your CTKA article. I read Dreier's HuffPo piece yesterday. I have to ask, is Dreier loyal to the United States? Ignorance and arrogance alone do not begin to explain his willful disregard of the greatest U.S. crime of the 20th century.

Gayle, Are you seeking return of the camera-original Nix film?

Paul Brancato, U.S. presidents fall into one of two categories on foreign policy: [a] those who seek to force an outcome, {b] those who seek to force a process. JFK, in my opinion, knew this distinction. IMO, he didn't like it. But he didn't have much choice, he perceived. Obama is like JFK in that Obama is about process. But unlike Obama, JFK was concerned centrally about outcome. Outcome meant a lot in the early 1960s.

Isis is either the premier false-flag punching bag or the stupidist political group ever. Sure, they appeal greatly to many disaffected young people. Strength, purpose, ruthlessness, all that. But to hack off China, Europe, Russia, and the U.S.: that invites punishment. Not temporary, but permanent. That's stupid, I think. Particularly when Isis doesn't offer much to males or females.

Cliff, The tapes do not mention the possibility of Diem's murder. If JFK and RFK did not grasp that a coup would involve Diem's murder, they were either too naive or too uninformed about South Vietnamese presidential politics. I'm inclined to think JFK was willing to let the chips fall where they may and hope for something better than the Diem regime. What the U.S. got de facto as a result of the coup and Diem's murder was ownership of the situation in South Viet Nam. Any U.S. president who could not or did not foresee that outcome would be, IMO, incompetent. Footnote: I view JFK, I believe, realistically. He was a gifted speaker, a shrewd politician of his time, a leader who preferred not to take risky public acts, a man of ideas. By many accounts, he held his cards close to his vest and only really trusted (in the political realm) his brother RFK. While he preferred not to take risky public acts, he apparently had no such reservation in his private life, which I believe was a liability. His murder, IMO, is the most important unsolved crime in the history of the USA.

Cliff, I've paid attention to JFK's tapes relative to Diem's assassination. RFK opines that if the assassination leads to a good result, the U.S. should support it.

If JFK had been a batter and I'd been an umpire in early November 1963, I'd have had the count at 1 - 2. The 1 would be for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The two strikes would be for the BOP and the Diem assassination, both of which he could have prevented. JFK was a terrific speech-maker. His words inspired many, but his actions did not always match his words. On the date of his death, he may well have been evolving in terms of his actions. Firmness of action was still lacking in his foreign policy. Maybe that's just my perception; but I cannot but believe he and RFK let the Diem assassination go forward on the basis that it was the best of two bad choices.

Hersh's "balanced perspective" ignores a few details. Such as Joe, Sr.'s ties to organized crime and exactly why FDR appointed him to be the first S.E.C. Chairman. FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to chair the S.E.C. because Wall Street was being run by crooks, and FDR wanted the biggest Wall Street crook at the time to enforce the new securities laws aimed at curbing frauds.